Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
Is that because you actually thought about it, or is it because you are completely ignorant about what DNA actually is?
You might want to read the story again. They said it can be done subsequent to any arrest. That is just Maryland's policy.
he seems to have missed pretty much eveything in this article and has now sunk to the liberal tactic of I know you are but what am i
Liberals voted against the practice
Get your story straight
Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.
What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).
The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.
The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.
The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.
With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?
Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.
And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.
if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.
Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.
he seems to have missed pretty much eveything in this article and has now sunk to the liberal tactic of I know you are but what am i
Liberals voted against the practice
Get your story straight
but wait? isn't the supreme court supposed to be bipartisan? do you mean to tell me we have a justice system that is influenced by who appoints them? Is that what you are trying to tell me?
of course it was there choice to give their dna. it wasn't forcefully taken from them. what you have now is a situation where it the cops want to get your DNA all they have ot do is arrest you on any trumped up charge.States vary. Maryland, the state at issue in this case, only does it for serious crimes.
The Patriot Act requires federal authorities to take DNA for any violent crimes, and not just for terroristic crimes.
You were too quick, I added that was Maryland's policy to my post. But the point is the SCOTUS ruling allows it for any arrest. I guarantee state will align their policies with this ruling. Have you ever know a police power bureaucrats didn't like?
Of course the police would like more power, and the more power they are given, the more likely they are to abuse it.
However, I do not see any substantive difference between taking a DNA swab and fingerprinting and taking a mug shot. In fact, DNA just provides a helluva lot more accuracy, which is a GOOD thing. It has freed many men from death row.
so in other words if you happened to walk through a crime scene 2 minutes before the crime occured, your dna is there and you could be convicted for something you didn't do
The Government has the sample itself, not just the markers that are derived from it.
The ability to multiply genetic material from the sample to allow further testing by other agencies is there.
With the Government now intimately in control of your health care, what is to say that HHS won't ask for genetic samples, already under Government control, to use in "studies"?
Fingerprints are currently used for training all the time. Once the Government owns your fingerprints or DNA now, there is nothing to limit what they can use it for.
And don't suggest that we can "trust" the Government. Not when we already have proof that those in the Government will use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. The current IRS mess is evidence of that.
if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.
Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? The police can arrest you for disorderly conduct and then take you DNA, it is not restricted to serious felonies.
By the way, it is possible to use a DNA profile to determine that someone you are related to left DNA at a crime scene. Unless you can show me how police can do that with a fingerprint and/or a mug shot there is a significant difference.
Liberals voted against the practice
Get your story straight
but wait? isn't the supreme court supposed to be bipartisan? do you mean to tell me we have a justice system that is influenced by who appoints them? Is that what you are trying to tell me?
You are the one who implied that here. You aren't fooling anyone.
I think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
Is that because you actually thought about it, or is it because you are completely ignorant about what DNA actually is?
so in other words if you happened to walk through a crime scene 2 minutes before the crime occured, your dna is there and you could be convicted for something you didn't do
so in other words if you happened to walk through a crime scene 2 minutes before the crime occured, your fingerprints are there and you could be convicted for something you didn't do
Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?
Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.
What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).
The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.
No, what they actually have is your DNA. The fact that they currently do not do a complete analysis does not change the fact that they actually have it. It takes a pretty stupid person to argue that this is all they have.
States vary. Maryland, the state at issue in this case, only does it for serious crimes.
The Patriot Act requires federal authorities to take DNA for any violent crimes, and not just for terroristic crimes.
You were too quick, I added that was Maryland's policy to my post. But the point is the SCOTUS ruling allows it for any arrest. I guarantee state will align their policies with this ruling. Have you ever know a police power bureaucrats didn't like?
Of course the police would like more power, and the more power they are given, the more likely they are to abuse it.
However, I do not see any substantive difference between taking a DNA swab and fingerprinting and taking a mug shot. In fact, DNA just provides a helluva lot more accuracy, which is a GOOD thing. It has freed many men from death row.
awesome, so you finally agree all of the ows protestors arrested should have been. glad we cleared that upI think it is a reasonable search similar in magnitute to a fingerprint or mug shot
Is that because you actually thought about it, or is it because you are completely ignorant about what DNA actually is?
I am fully aware of what DNA is
It has individual markers just like your fingerprints or mug shot do
IF you are arrested, the following 4th amendment provisions apply
1. Unreasonable search and seisure- a DNA swap is not an unreasonable invasion of your privacy. No more so than a fingerprint
2. Probable cause- You have been arrested. Probable cause has been established
if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.
Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.
If it's no different then why are they taking it ?
because it expands the scope of evidence collecting from a crime scene. With fingerprints you have to actually leave one behind, and gloves can take care of that. With DNA any scrap of hair, or bodily fluid leaves something beind that can be linked to you.
he seems to have missed pretty much eveything in this article and has now sunk to the liberal tactic of I know you are but what am i
Liberals voted against the practice
Get your story straight
but wait? isn't the supreme court supposed to be bipartisan? do you mean to tell me we have a justice system that is influenced by who appoints them? Is that what you are trying to tell me?
Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.
What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).
The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.
No, what they actually have is your DNA. The fact that they currently do not do a complete analysis does not change the fact that they actually have it. It takes a pretty stupid person to argue that this is all they have.
Unless they decide they want to clone me a couple 1000 times to make an army of nerdy wastewater engineers, them having my DNA is not a big concern to me. I'd rather they have it if I am accused of a crime I didnt do, as it would rule me out pretty damn quickly in some cases.
Scalia sided with the libs on this one and voted with the minority. It's hard to understand how the majority Court could determine that a person who isn't even convicted of a crime can have DNA, forcibly if necessary, taken and used against him/her in past and future crimes.
We already do the same thing with fingerprints, all this does is extend the same thing to DNA profiling.
Liberals voted against the practice
Get your story straight
but wait? isn't the supreme court supposed to be bipartisan? do you mean to tell me we have a justice system that is influenced by who appoints them? Is that what you are trying to tell me?
Why do I have to explain this over and over again to morons who do not understand the difference between Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative
Pretty much. When people hear that they are taking your "DNA" some think that the state now has your entire genome for it to scrutinize and analyse.
What they actually have is a much more limited pattern of "markers" that are close to unique (from 1 in 5 million in earlier versions to 1 in 100 billion in current versions).
The DNA test says nothing about your genetic makeup, it just gives a pattern that you alone have in a given test.
Not sure what you mean, can you not determine genetic makeup by taking someone's DNA?
If your point was test related, doesn't this ruling set a dangerous precedent allowing for more detailed and accurate tests to be allowed in the future?
.
You are thinking of full genome sequencing, which is very expensive, and still does not reveal alot about a person without alot of (expensive) analysis.
We already set the precedent when we allowed fingerprints to be taken on arrest. DNA profiling is a higher tech version of that, nothing more.
You were too quick, I added that was Maryland's policy to my post. But the point is the SCOTUS ruling allows it for any arrest. I guarantee state will align their policies with this ruling. Have you ever know a police power bureaucrats didn't like?
Of course the police would like more power, and the more power they are given, the more likely they are to abuse it.
However, I do not see any substantive difference between taking a DNA swab and fingerprinting and taking a mug shot. In fact, DNA just provides a helluva lot more accuracy, which is a GOOD thing. It has freed many men from death row.
Your photo deals with your outward appearance, something that is there for all the world to see. A fingerprint is left on virtually everything you touch. DNA not so much. If DNA is needed to prosecute a crime a judge will grant a warrant for its collection. A cheek swab is intrusive even if it is minimal. In my opinion it is just another chip out of the cornerstone of our civil liberties.
