Unfettered access? The same court who said it's ok to strip search a prisoner said taking an oral swab is too invasive. Ok. And oral swabs to you is unfettered. Ok. Maybe you should look up unfettered, or stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
Gansler wants your DNA
- Thread starter Merlin99
- Start date
Unfettered access? The same court who said it's ok to strip search a prisoner said taking an oral swab is too invasive. Ok. And oral swabs to you is unfettered. Ok. Maybe you should look up unfettered, or stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Strip searching a prisoner has a legitimate purpose. When the DNA swab as a legitimate purpose it is also legal. When it is done solely as a shot in the dark it is a 4th amendment violation.
MMM_donuts
New Member
Can they get your genetic information from your dna swab? Like, to put in that genetic database tracker....what was the name of that program where they were trying to do worldwide tracking to identify common deficiencies and/or abnormalities? Many people are concerned that it could be used to eliminate populations of people based on their genetic weaknesses...
Dakota
~~~~~~~
Tom,
I just sat in a room last week and gave my unpopular opinion on the matter to a group who clearly disagreed with me. I stood by it then and stand by it now on this board. I realize that catching bad guys and getting them off the street is a good thing but not at the expense of violating the 4th amendment. I believe strongly in the founding principles our country is built on. Once the perp is CONVICTED, DNA is fair game but not based on just charging documents. The argument they have made FOR this is those cases in which they have been able to solve 'cold case' crimes could be overturn based on this recent ruling. However, I believe with a new trial they will be convicted. These offenders were convicted of the crimes they were charged with in every case. You have to remember you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. PERIOD
I just sat in a room last week and gave my unpopular opinion on the matter to a group who clearly disagreed with me. I stood by it then and stand by it now on this board. I realize that catching bad guys and getting them off the street is a good thing but not at the expense of violating the 4th amendment. I believe strongly in the founding principles our country is built on. Once the perp is CONVICTED, DNA is fair game but not based on just charging documents. The argument they have made FOR this is those cases in which they have been able to solve 'cold case' crimes could be overturn based on this recent ruling. However, I believe with a new trial they will be convicted. These offenders were convicted of the crimes they were charged with in every case. You have to remember you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. PERIOD
Last edited:
So mugshots taken, and fingerprints obtained, should not be used in cases unless the person is convicted right? In that, if my prints are on file because I was arrested for a dui, but given a probation before judgement and the person picked me out of a photo line up using my mug shot from that same pbj, that "evidence" should not be admissable right?
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
That's why I said I'm split on it. There is a lot of good that could come from doing this, but a lot of bad stuff also, whether or not that is Gansler's aim.
It's not a baby step towards big brother. That's silly. For cripes sake. Stop with the big brother crap. The same arguments were made when fingerprinting was introduced. "A way of tracking us". It's a way to keep predators off of our streets. I truly hope that dna is never needed to solve a horrific crime against someone who is close to anyone who opposes this. The system is already stacked against the innocent.
Not a baby step at all, a giant leap. Why not just collect dna swabs as a requirement for a drivers license?
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
You must not be familiar with politics [at all]. The most benign, well-meaning ideas have been subject to countless politicians' distortions and "loose interpretations". I can look at the positive potential for this as it is proposed, but not everyone will be inclined to stop there.
MMDad
Lem Putt
If the mugshots and fingerprints were only collected for the purpose of having them on file, then the search would not be legit. Since they are taken for a legitimate reason, any information derived from them is legit.
In the case recently decided there was no legitimate reason to take the DNA.
It's no different than getting pulled over for speeding and the cop searching your vehicle solely based on the speeding. It would help solve a lot of crimes, it would get bad people off the streets, and it would make law enforcemnt easier. But fortunately we have a 4th amendment to protect us from unreasonable searches.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Why don't we just get rid of search warrants and let the cops enter anywhere they wish? It's a way that gets predators off the streets.
Retrodeb54
Surely you jest ...
Speeding...not a criminal and has never committed a serious crime.
Swabbed... put in database but 4th amenment rights violated.
3 years later someone is found dead... DNA found.
DNA processed...persons name comes up.
Other connections of the two people established by other means/or not in a random case...arrest made.
How many man hours saved?
Note: If thou protests to much, suspicion immediately steps in.
Swabbed... put in database but 4th amenment rights violated.
3 years later someone is found dead... DNA found.
DNA processed...persons name comes up.
Other connections of the two people established by other means/or not in a random case...arrest made.
How many man hours saved?
Note: If thou protests to much, suspicion immediately steps in.
What the hell are you talking about?Speeding...not a criminal and has never committed a serious crime.
People who are speeding are not swabbed under the law.
Swabbed... put in database but 4th amenment rights violated.
3 years later someone is found dead... DNA found.
DNA processed...persons name comes up.
Other connections of the two people established by other means/or not in a random case...arrest made.
How many man hours saved?
Note: If thou protests to much, suspicion immediately steps in.
Because that isn't reasonable. The part you are leaving out in all this, is the people who are being swabbed are people who have been arrested for some sort of felony such as robbery. That means there is probable cause that exists to believe they committed a crime. That means they can be stripped searched. You however feels that a swab put into their mouth is an unreasonable and unfretted search. Am I understanding you correctly?
What is the legitimate reason?
MMDad
Lem Putt
Maybe you should read the COA opinion. It will help you understand the basics.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Looks like you need to do some basic research.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Protesting an unconstitutional search is reason for suspicion? Do you wipe your azz with the Constitution every day?Speeding...not a criminal and has never committed a serious crime.
Swabbed... put in database but 4th amenment rights violated.
3 years later someone is found dead... DNA found.
DNA processed...persons name comes up.
Other connections of the two people established by other means/or not in a random case...arrest made.
How many man hours saved?
Note: If thou protests to much, suspicion immediately steps in.
I did. I understand the basics. It's you that make the assetions that search warrants aren't needed for anything any longer.
I will say it again. The constitution protects against unreasonable searches. Explain why taking swabs from someone who is under arrest for committing a burglary or a violent crime for the purpose of identification is unreasonable. Maryland law prohibits DNA use for purposes beyond identification.