Gansler wants your DNA

[EmptyTimCup]

I can see the argument from the 4th Amendment, but it depends on what one considers an "unreasonable search and seizure".

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

I have always thought it wrong to allow any collection of fluids ........ akin to forcing someone to testify ......... what happened to the 5th Amendment


unfortunately a number of Jurisdictions automatically collect DNA when you are picked up - not sure if DNA is gathered if you are 'detained' or you gave to be arrested

 

[Merlin99]

They are charged with....murder, robbery, rape...etc. Some cases are better than others. Sometimes they are caught red handed. They have confessed. There are multiple witnesses.

This isn't really about innocence or guilt though this is about unreasonable search. The person is already in custody. It takes 30 seconds to run a swab under their lip. Their identity is confirmed as to whom they are. If there is a hit on their DNA another case might be solved, or, an innocent person might even go free! Tell me what is so unreasonable about that swab?

I agree that police shouldn't over extend our authority but this isn't it. This is using the tools we have to do our job. It is not abusing citizens. It is not a fishing expedition as you or someone else proclaimed in an earlier post. It's getting bad people off of the street. Not at any extra cost. We are not bustin into people's homes, we are not stopping people on the street. We are not looking into peoples cars. We are processing them while they are being arrested. Nothing unreasonable about that.

I hope Tom is right. I hope it's overturned. If not, I hope you explain to the next rape victim why their rapist can't be convicted because you want to protect the rights of the person who raped them.

So why not collect every bodies DNA when you get your drivers license? It only takes 30 seconds and may solve some crime somewhere.

 

[itsrequired]

So why not collect every bodies DNA when you get your drivers license? It only takes 30 seconds and may solve some crime somewhere.

Because getting your driver's license isn't part of the booking process.

 

[Merlin99]

Because getting your driver's license isn't part of the booking process.

But you're both innocent of any crime at this point.

 

[justiceforall]

Doug Gansler wants your DNA whether you're guilty or not. I don't care if they take it after they prove something, but I do have a problem with taking it before then.
give me back my fishing license

I don't have a problem with them taking it. It's no different than any other search when you are under arrest.

 

[itsrequired]

But you're both innocent of any crime at this point.

That may not be true! They both may be presumed innocent, but one of them are under arrest!

 

[Merlin99]

I don't have a problem with them taking it. It's no different than any other search when you are under arrest.

From reading your other posts I wouldn't expect any other response from you.

 

[MMDad]

I don't have a problem with them taking it. It's no different than any other search when you are under arrest.

If someone gets into a bar fight, do you automatically get to seize their computer? There might be evidence of other crimes there, so why not?

Same thing here. If the DNA is needed for the current investigation then it is a legit search. It's not a legit search if the DNA is being collected for the sole purpose of running through a database.

 

[justiceforall]

If someone gets into a bar fight, do you automatically get to seize their computer? There might be evidence of other crimes there, so why not?

Same thing here. If the DNA is needed for the current investigation then it is a legit search. It's not a legit search if the DNA is being collected for the sole purpose of running through a database.

If someone gets into a bar fight, and are charged with second degree assault, their DNA is not collected. But, if someone gets into a bar fight and kills the guy with a handgun, charged with murder, then I would arrest them. In the booking process I would fingerprint them and collect their DNA (until this assanine ruling) as part of the booking process. If their prints or DNA hit on another crime, they would be investigated for that as well.

Point is, the douche bag shouldn't have gotten into a bar fight and killed someone. (allegedly)

 

[Lurk]

So why not collect every bodies DNA when you get your drivers license? It only takes 30 seconds and may solve some crime somewhere.

Why not do it in the delivery room within minutes of being born. That would clear it up for everyone. No waiting for someone to be detained, arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated.

 

[tom88]

Why not do it in the delivery room within minutes of being born. That would clear it up for everyone. No waiting for someone to be detained, arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated.

That is a typical response in instances of this sort. Take it to the extreme to attempt to justify your position. That however, isn’t what the law was doing. There was nothing extreme about collecting identifying information from someone who has been arrested and there is probable cause to believe they have committed a violent crime, then storing that data. It is done everyday with fingerprints. DNA is simply a more modern and efficient way of doing things.

What is getting lost here in my opinion is somewhat ridiculous. People on here are advocating that dangerous criminals be let back loose in society because of legally collected evidence. Not because they are innocent, no the DNA is part of the evidence which proves they are not. Not because the police broke down their door and did something dirty. But because when they were arrested for a violent crime, people think it’s too intrusive to take a swab from under their lip.

 

[Merlin99]

That is a typical response in instances of this sort. Take it to the extreme to attempt to justify your position. That however, isn’t what the law was doing. There was nothing extreme about collecting identifying information from someone who has been arrested and there is probable cause to believe they have committed a violent crime, then storing that data. It is done everyday with fingerprints. DNA is simply a more modern and efficient way of doing things.

What is getting lost here in my opinion is somewhat ridiculous. People on here are advocating that dangerous criminals be let back loose in society because of legally collected evidence. Not because they are innocent, no the DNA is part of the evidence which proves they are not. Not because the police broke down their door and did something dirty. But because when they were arrested for a violent crime, people think it’s too intrusive to take a swab from under their lip.

People are let go every day because the police crossed the line and the evidence gets kicked. You can't use the ends justify the means just because it makes things easier for you.

 

[MMDad]

People on here are advocating that dangerous criminals be let back loose in society because of legally collected evidence.

Stop being a drama queen. Nobody is advocating anything of the sort.

If it was legally collected evidence, the conviction would have stood.

The only thing that we are advocating is that police have a reason to collect the evidence prior to doing so. That may be may be probable cause, just like any other search the police do, or it may be a conviction.

 

[itsrequired]

Stop being a drama queen. Nobody is advocating anything of the sort.

If it was legally collected evidence, the conviction would have stood.

The only thing that we are advocating is that police have a reason to collect the evidence prior to doing so. That may be may be probable cause, just like any other search the police do, or it may be a conviction.

It was legally collected. The idiotic court rulled (and it will be overturned) that the law was wrong.

Tell me what the difference between this and fingerprints are?

These people aren't under arrest for parking tickets. They are violent criminals. Granted, they have not been convicted at that time, but there is sufficient probable cause to believe they have committed the crime for them to get charged. Why hamper law enforcement further. Why should a rapist have this "right"? This court has determined a strip search is not too invasive, but swabbing their lip is. And you agree with them.

 

[itsrequired]

People are let go every day because the police crossed the line and the evidence gets kicked. You can't use the ends justify the means just because it makes things easier for you.

These cops didn't cross the line! The followed the law.

 

[Merlin99]

These cops didn't cross the line! The followed the law.

Maryland's highest court disagrees with you, I'd say I have the stronger case at this time.

 

[itsrequired]

Maryland's highest court disagrees with you, I'd say I have the stronger case at this time.

For the moment. Common sense and justice will prevail.

 

[MMDad]

Why should a rapist have this "right"?

Because the Constitution says so.

 

[itsrequired]

Because the Constitution says so.

The people who wrote the constitution had no idea about DNA, or fingerprints for that matter. These ideas about this being too invasive is gobbly goup created by lawyers. Don't buy into the hype. Someday it might be someone you care about on the wrong end of being a victim and then you'll be boo hooing because the culprit can't be brought to justice because his rights might be violated.

 

[Merlin99]

The people who wrote the constitution had no idea about DNA, or fingerprints for that matter. These ideas about this being too invasive is gobbly goup created by lawyers. Don't buy into the hype. Someday it might be someone you care about on the wrong end of being a victim and then you'll be boo hooing because the culprit can't be brought to justice because his rights might be violated.

This kind of thinking would eventually come to the conclusion that a police state could be just what we need.