Gansler wants your DNA

Dakota

~~~~~~~
I agree with you. I think to take it before you are convicted of a crime is a violation of one's 4th amendment right. Once they are convicted and booked on a charge, the DNA is taken so to act as if these cases would have never been solved had they not violated the rights of the arrested is a bunch of crap. They would have eventually been solved - just delayed the process by a few months.
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
They would have eventually been solved - just delayed the process by a few months.
Time = taxpayer money. If a suspect is going to be found guilty anyway, why expend more resources than necessary to make it happen?

I am split on this. I can see the argument from the 4th Amendment, but it depends on what one considers an "unreasonable search and seizure". If a person can be linked to past crimes is it still unreasonable?

Gansler's proclamation that "the Court of Appeals decision runs counter to what other courts nationwide have held" is weak. That's why we have separate judiciaries; rulings are supposed to be based on facts, not whatever the other guys are doing.

On the other side, in an era where laws so often seem to favor criminals over victims this is one determination that could give law enforcement some help. If this evidence was allowed to be gathered and used, it could not only make the process quicker but also prevent erroneous convictions.

Or it could be another dangerous precedent that leads to everyone being cataloged and tracked...
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Time = taxpayer money. If a suspect is going to be found guilty anyway, why expend more resources than necessary to make it happen?

I am split on this. I can see the argument from the 4th Amendment, but it depends on what one considers an "unreasonable search and seizure". If a person can be linked to past crimes is it still unreasonable?

Gansler's proclamation that "the Court of Appeals decision runs counter to what other courts nationwide have held" is weak. That's why we have separate judiciaries; rulings are supposed to be based on facts, not whatever the other guys are doing.

On the other side, in an era where laws so often seem to favor criminals over victims this is one determination that could give law enforcement some help. If this evidence was allowed to be gathered and used, it could not only make the process quicker but also prevent erroneous convictions.

Or it could be another dangerous precedent that leads to everyone being cataloged and tracked...
How far of a step is until you get pulled over for a brake light and being asked to provide a DNA swab?
 

direxpgw

Member
dna

How far of a step is until you get pulled over for a brake light and being asked to provide a DNA swab?


Exactly. This is a baby step towards big brother in a bad way. Its easy to agree with Gansler when you look solely thru the looking glass of this particular test case. I mean who wants a rapist on the loose. Most reasonable people are happy he got caught and put away. But these are always the examples that get used in order to convince us of some great expansive power of government or loss of liberty. Do you honestly believe that if this was passed and law enforcement just wanted my DNA, that I wouldnt be getting arrested for some BS trumped up charge that got dreamed up that morning? You can be arrested for anything my friends. To be convicted is pretty easy too but at least you get to fight it. Dont buy the crap that only the guilty are hurt by intrusive govt policies like this.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
I agree with you. I think to take it before you are convicted of a crime is a violation of one's 4th amendment right. Once they are convicted and booked on a charge, the DNA is taken so to act as if these cases would have never been solved had they not violated the rights of the arrested is a bunch of crap. They would have eventually been solved - just delayed the process by a few months.

I'm sorry you are wrong. Once the DNA is taken, it is put into codus. Just like when your fingerprints are taken they are put into a database. Then there are matches based on submitted evidence. It may have nothing to do with the case at hand. It really is no different than catching a burgular with fingerprint evidence.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Like the automated plate scanners, I hate this, "Uncle Sugar wants info on you, just in case in the future you screw up" sort of thing. Seems to go against the basic tenet of a free country. Unless and until I do something wrong, leave me alone. It gets closer to a GPS bracelet being issued at birth all the time.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
Like the automated plate scanners, I hate this, "Uncle Sugar wants info on you, just in case in the future you screw up" sort of thing. Seems to go against the basic tenet of a free country. Unless and until I do something wrong, leave me alone. It gets closer to a GPS bracelet being issued at birth all the time.

So are you saying when the police arrest you they shouldn't take your photograph and fingerprints until you are convicted?
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
I'm sorry you are wrong. Once the DNA is taken, it is put into codus. Just like when your fingerprints are taken they are put into a database. Then there are matches based on submitted evidence. It may have nothing to do with the case at hand. It really is no different than catching a burgular with fingerprint evidence.
And you're saying this is a good thing? because I really don't think so.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
And you're saying this is a good thing? because I really don't think so.

Yes, it is. It helps catch dangerous criminals. Why would you think it is not a good thing? Do you think the fingerprint database is a bad thing?
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Yes, it is. It helps catch dangerous criminals. Why would you think it is not a good thing? Do you think the fingerprint database is a bad thing?
Because I haven't committed a crime and don't want my info in some government database.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
So are you saying when the police arrest you they shouldn't take your photograph and fingerprints until you are convicted?

The MD COA has issued their opinion that the DNA swab violates 4th amendment rights solely for the purpose of collecting data. It is still a legal search if the purpose is to identify the person.

In the case they just decided, they didn't run the DNA to identify the person. It was used to put into the database and look for hits.

What's next? The argument that if you haven't done anything wrong you shouldn't mind? Should we let the po-po search your car or house, or take your DNA just because they want to?
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
The MD COA has issued their opinion that the DNA swab violates 4th amendment rights solely for the purpose of collecting data. It is still a legal search if the purpose is to identify the person.

In the case they just decided, they didn't run the DNA to identify the person. It was used to put into the database and look for hits.

What's next? The argument that if you haven't done anything wrong you shouldn't mind? Should we let the po-po search your car or house, or take your DNA just because they want to?

Not at all. They don't fingerprint you each time and photograph you each time for identification. Those photographs are often used later in photo line ups for different cases. This is not an intrusive search. It's a swab. Fingerprints are used in hits all the time. Not just for identification.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
So you think it's wrong for police to take fingerprints and photographs when they arrest you?

There are legitimate reasons to fingerprint and photograph, other than just to run your data through the cold cases. There can ba reasons to do the same with DNA, which would also make it legal.

When the reason is solely to collect data it is a 4th amendment violation.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
The MD COA has issued their opinion that the DNA swab violates 4th amendment rights solely for the purpose of collecting data. It is still a legal search if the purpose is to identify the person.

In the case they just decided, they didn't run the DNA to identify the person. It was used to put into the database and look for hits.

What's next? The argument that if you haven't done anything wrong you shouldn't mind? Should we let the po-po search your car or house, or take your DNA just because they want to?

So you agree with this ultra liberal court of opinon huh? How much you want to bet they get over turned. HUGE waste of your tax dollars. Remember who appointed them. None of 'em appointed by a conservative republican that's for sure.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
Not at all. They don't fingerprint you each time and photograph you each time for identification. Those photographs are often used later in photo line ups for different cases. This is not an intrusive search. It's a swab. Fingerprints are used in hits all the time. Not just for identification.

You better run up to Annapolis and let the COA know they are wrong.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
So you agree with this ultra liberal court of opinon huh? How much you want to bet they get over turned. HUGE waste of your tax dollars. Remember who appointed them. None of 'em appointed by a conservative republican that's for sure.

You see the limiting of government power as being a liberal thing? You think that allowing unfettered access to your body by Big Brother is something a conservative should support?

It doesn't matter who appointed them. As someone who believes in the constitution, I believe they got this one right. Even a blind squirrel.....
 
Top