September 2012 Moms
hmp1
member
DNA swabs at arrest
hmp1
member
So this is a big story here since TN does it, not sure if it is every where. Supreme Court just ruled that TN can continue doing DNA swabs during the arrest process, no warrant required. It is likened to fingerprints. Currently, TN is only doing the swab if the person is accused of a violent crime. Their DNA is put in the "system" and compared to other unsolved cases even if they are not found guilty of the crime they were originally arrested for. So what say you, do you think this is an invasion of privacy or do you think it is the same thing as fingerprints?
James Sawyer 12.3.10
Leo Richard 9.20.12
This discussion has been closed.
Re: DNA swabs at arrest
Yes this exactly. Rora I can see your point. I had to get fingerprinted for my job as well. I was proving I was innocent. I meant to say that they can then use your DNA to compare matches in the general system to get violent criminals or those on the lam off the streets.
Lol, this is totally where my slippery slope mind went. I really hate the "I'm not a criminal, so let's do it to get the bad guys" reasoning.
This. In WI we don't have this law. I don't look at it as an invasion of privacy at all.
Nancy James 9.1.12
Calvin Donald 8.27.14
Just googled it and it appears that it is the exception to not require a warrant. In most cases, a warrant will be required to use the blood test as evidence. Exception being if a warrant is not accessible. But they said most judges do electronic warrants now through iPads and smart phones.
4/17/2013, WASHINGTON ? Police officers usually must have a search warrant before requiring a suspected drunk driver to have his blood drawn, the Supreme Court said Wednesday.
In an 8-1 decision, the justices rejected Missouri prosecutors' contention that police should have the freedom to act quickly and dispense with a warrant because alcohol dissipates in the blood.
Instead, the court said it would hold fast to its view that the 4th Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches" means the police usually need a warrant from a magistrate before invading a person's privacy. And sticking a needle into someone's veins to obtain a sample of blood "is an invasion of bodily integrity [that] implicates an individual's most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The MO case that went to the supreme court was just that. No probable cause to link him to the other crime except the DNA retrieved without consent/warrant during a different arrest.
To me I would be interested to see what qualifies as 'probable cause.'
Then I could discuss the topic. Without reasonable probable cause, I do not agree with it.
Sorry to disappoint you ladies. I get the other arguments out there, I just think the benefits outweigh them. I'm talking specifically about the original article that hmp posted....if you're arrested for a violent crime, I see no reason why your DNA shouldn't be collected/harvested/whatever. Creating a database when babies are born, when anyone does anything? No. That's just stupid.
Nancy James 9.1.12
Calvin Donald 8.27.14
They keep the electronic make up of the DNA on file. If they get a match, a new swab is taken and used as the evidence of the new case. So I believe the actual samples are destroyed but the record of the make up is not. And they are only taking certain make up of the DNA so not to have access to medical history on file.
<--- not a scientist, don't laugh at my non-technical verbiage.
Fact: Hyaline is a little bit of a paranoid nutcase who is very surprised this has not already happened.
I can see the argument for DNA testing as "no different than fingerprints" but I do get a little iffy on the fact that, once it's in the system, it's there whether someone was eventually found innocent or not. And while I don't think there's any current reason to flip out over Big Brother having access to that info, I always consider the possibility that someday we could.
Agreed.
But the trouble is, we can't assume that arrest = guilt. Arrest only means suspicion of guilt. So really, there is no proof that the person being arrested is any different from that baby in terms of innocence. I know that the benefits could be great, but at the same time, it doesn't sit well with me. I guess I fall into that whole "those would give up liberty for safety deserve neither" thing.
[MC 11.20.11] [DS born 9.24.12] [DD born 10.15.14]
Stupid quote trees.
I understand what Hyline and Rora are saying, really I do. I just disagree, that's all.
I realize arrest doesn't always equal guilt, but if I'm arrested and I'm innocent, I don't know why I wouldn't want that proven by a more accurate measure, such as a DNA swab.
Nancy James 9.1.12
Calvin Donald 8.27.14
Wasn't this the premise behind a movie that Tom Cruise was in?
[MC 11.20.11] [DS born 9.24.12] [DD born 10.15.14]
Why can't trey obtain that DNA with a warrant. Or voluntary DNA swab? I don't think the government should be able to obtain DNA all willy nilly. They have probably cause, then they can get a warrant.
Are you thinking of that movie where they arrested people before they committed the crime?
When I think of freaky DNA testing taking over the world, I think of Gattaca.
I cannot believe we are spending money on this. I wonder what their budget is.
I am not a fan of this SC decision. AND Redneck momma I agree with your statements here.
I have a question for you ladies, does it make a difference if the DNA sample is voluntary? So let's say X is arrested under suspicion of robbery. He agrees to give a DNA sample. He is not the perpetrator of the robbery but when they run the DNA sample he is a match for a different crime two years earlier. Okay yes or no?
No I would think they only believe they are going to use the DNA sample in this investigation. I am iffy on it for this reason. They voluntarily gave the sample so that relieves some of my concern but how far the consent goes is another question. IMO.
I was just curious as to what others thought.
I'm going to go with OK because anyone who is enough of a dipstick to give DNA when they know there's a crime on record with their "name" on it has it coming.
No, I kid. (um, sort of) If he knew that the DNA would be run against a database of unsolved crimes and gave consent, obviously ok. If he did not give explicit consent but that info was not withheld from him, yeah, I guess ok but it's iffy. If it was purposely withheld that the DNA would be used for other investigations, not ok.
I think those of us against the SC ruling have different degrees of disagreement. Like Rora, Redneck, and I are just saying they should have to have a warrant. But I think Cheese has a problem with the entire thing including the database.
So, to your question, I don't have a problem with running voluntarily given DNA through the system.
I think I would need to hear all the arguments to truly make a decision, but this my initial thought.