MMDad
Lem Putt
Then why do you disagree with the ruling? You seem to agree that DNA should not be used for anything but identification, which is exactly what the COA decided. Are you confused?
Gansler wants your DNA
- Thread starter Merlin99
- Start date
Then why do you disagree with the ruling? You seem to agree that DNA should not be used for anything but identification, which is exactly what the COA decided. Are you confused?
...
But identification, like fingerprints doesn't stop at the booking counter. Like fingerprints if it is placed into the system and information is derived that you have committed other crimes that "evidence" may be used. DNA is no different. It is not invasive. It is not unreasonable.
No, he doesn't.
Those are people athat were legally in the criminal justice system. How many of those people were aquitted of the charge they were originally arrested for?
Those people are legally innocent until they are convicted, anything past that point is moot.
MMDad
Lem Putt
The COA decision allows collection of DNA for identification purposes, just like fingerprints. It does not then prevent the use of the DNA. The only thing the COA decision stops is collecting DNA solely to put into the database.
Collecting DNA in order to identify a person = allowed.
Collecting DNA solely for putting into the database = unconstitutional.
Collecting fingerprints to identify a person = allowed.
Collecting fingerprints solely for adding to a database = unconstitutional.
So if you connect someone to a burglary based on their fingerprint hit, or based on their mug shot in a line up, you should now let them go because the evidence was obtained prior to them being found guilty?
Well, fortunately for victims and the wrongfully accused, my opinion will prevail and yours will not. It will take a little while and cost some of our tax dollars, but in the end, right will win.
I don't know if I'd be to sure of that Kreskin, it was 5-2 not even a close miss. Besides we all know how many cases the SC takes.
I don't know if I'd be to sure of that Kreskin, it was 5-2 not even a close miss. Besides we all know how many cases the SC takes.
5-2 by the Maryland court does not make a firm decision. Lol...especially with the current SCOTUS. I'm sure.
5-2 by the Maryland court of appeals makes it binding on Maryland and the SC only accepting 1% of cases puts the odds against you.
Retrodeb54
Surely you jest ...
If someone doesn't have anything to hide why such a big deal if asked for a search or DNA sample? and No, I don't lay on the Constitution daily. Criminals however use it continuously to make excuses for why they should be allowed to do things they shouldn't be doing and be exempt from certain other things.
Sorry, but if I were pulled over for a driving infraction and they asked to look in my car that's not unconstitutional to me. More like the sign of the times and I wouldn't object because I have nothing to fear.
It's fine if you want to give up your rights, I just don't want you to give mine away with them.If someone doesn't have anything to hide why such a big deal if asked for a search or DNA sample? and No, I don't lay on the Constitution daily. Criminals however use it continuously to make excuses for why they should be allowed to do things they shouldn't be doing and be exempt from certain other things.
Sorry, but if I were pulled over for a driving infraction and they asked to look in my car that's not unconstitutional to me. More like the sign of the times and I wouldn't object because I have nothing to fear.
Don't do anything to get arrested. Don't put yourself in a situation where police have probable cause to arrest you for a violent crime and you don't have to worry about this. You act as though law enforcement are dragging people off of the street. The constitution protects you from unreasonable searches. This is a swab in the mouth after you have been arrested. You have no objection to being stripped search, but you object to the criminal being caught later on because we take his dna at the time of his arrest. Amazing.
You're confusing me with someone else.
itsrequired
New Member
Its stuff like this that kills me. Remember, this DNA is taken from people who are locked up already for crimes like robbery, rape, and murder. The DNA is used to identify those people and put into CODUS. If there is a hit in another crime, it is used to possibly prosecute those people in that crime. It's evidence. Not illegally obtained. Not planted. Not found after the cops broke into their house on a bad search warrant. Taken from them when they are arrested.
Now the Maryland court of appeals wants to say to the victims sorry...we don't care if we caught the guy who did this to you. It was too invasive a procedure to put a swab in his cheek when he got locked up.
Stuff like this makes me wonder how anyone ever gets convicted in this state.
Now the Maryland court of appeals wants to say to the victims sorry...we don't care if we caught the guy who did this to you. It was too invasive a procedure to put a swab in his cheek when he got locked up.
Stuff like this makes me wonder how anyone ever gets convicted in this state.
You forgot a couple of very important words in there.
itsrequired
New Member
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.