High court authorizes routine DNA collection

[g5000]

From the ruling, to which I linked above:

Maryland’s Act authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from, as relevant here, persons charged with violent crimes, including first-degree assault. A sample may not be added to a database before an individual is arraigned, and it must be destroyed if, e.g., he is not convicted.

The ruling refers repeatedly to DNA samples taken after being arrested for a violent crime. It does not address the issue of DNA samples taken for any arrest.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Fingerprints can tell police if you have a genetic disease? Since when?

Fingerprints can tell that you didn't commit a crime but your brother did? Who knew?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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

All it does is put you at the scene. DNA is usually not just collected from the whole area, but from things like articles of clothing (on the dead body) or bodily fluids like semen (found sometimes in the dead body). DNA evidence is not enough to convict, but its usually good at wrecking an alibi (i.e. I wasnt there).

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[martybegan]

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.

If it worked that way I could give you a Hot Wheels and you could use it to drive to work.

Not quite getting where you are going with this. Do we allow fingerprints on arrest? Yes. It is for purposes of ID, and of relating evidence found AT a crime scene to the person comitting the crime. the DNA evidence is ALSO left at the crime scene, what you are again doing is comparing it to the accused in question.

 

[martybegan]

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

All it does is put you at the scene. DNA is usually not just collected from the whole area, but from things like articles of clothing (on the dead body) or bodily fluids like semen (found sometimes in the dead body). DNA evidence is not enough to convict, but its usually good at wrecking an alibi (i.e. I wasnt there).

What color is the sky in your world?

So you dont have a good response, and have to resort to ad hominem? Nice.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Fingerprints can tell police if you have a genetic disease? Since when?

DNA sequencing used in evidence comparison cant tell you that either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Your fingerprints can be taken at your arrest, prior to conviction, and used against you for past and future crimes, as well. As can your mugshot.

It is a lot harder to collect fingerprints from a crime scene than most people think. For example, did you know that people who wash dishes constantly do not leave fingerprints? On top of that, science is actually challenging the entire idea of fingerprints never repeating?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Your fingerprints can be taken at your arrest, prior to conviction, and used against you for past and future crimes, as well. As can your mugshot.

It is a lot harder to collect fingerprints from a crime scene than most people think. For example, did you know that people who wash dishes constantly do not leave fingerprints? On top of that, science is actually challenging the entire idea of fingerprints never repeating?

that does not change the fact that fingerprints can be taken during arrest, and can be used to compare to evidence from previous crimes. DNA profiling as we currently perform it is nothing more than a higher tech more comprehensive version of the fingerprint.

You still have to leave something behind at the crime scene, just like with finger prints.

 

[Spoonman]

i am just amazed at how easily liberals seem to be willing to allow rights to be reinterpreted and taken away. it's like they welcome a police state all of a sudden

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.

So much for our 4th Amendment protections.

Read more:PeoplePC - News

You can blame the wingnut SCOTUS majority.

I guess that makes Scalia a leftwing moonbat now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By your standard fingerprinting and mug shots are "out of control"

yea, they are. you can be arrested for failing to pay your taxes. for non violent crimes. why do they need a fingerprint for those? why do they need DNA? you can be arrested for a peaceful protest. for excercising your first amendment right. but you get finger printed and a mugshot. now they will take your dna too? more government over reach

When arrested you need to be identified. These thing identify you.

We are also forgetting that DNA can HELP someone accused of a crime. if you have a rape victim and the perp left DNA evidence behind, if you are somehow arrested and didnt do it, the DNA evidence could show it and eliminate you as a suspect, thus saving your ass from jail/trial and possible false conviction.

All the DNA shows is if you were there or not.

You really do live in an alternate universe, don't you?

 

[martybegan]

i am just amazed at how easily liberals seem to be willing to allow rights to be reinterpreted and taken away. it's like they welcome a police state all of a sudden

If you looked at the court's split on this, this issue is not a liberal/conservative issue.

Yes it is a balance between state power and individual liberty, but if we allow fingerprints to be taken without a warrant, I dont see how a DNA profile that is basically a comparison between less than 2 dozen genetic markers would need one. Fingerprint analysis is basically the same thing.

 

[g5000]

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.

Your fingerprints can be taken at your arrest, prior to conviction, and used against you for past and future crimes, as well. As can your mugshot.

It is a lot harder to collect fingerprints from a crime scene than most people think. For example, did you know that people who wash dishes constantly do not leave fingerprints? On top of that, science is actually challenging the entire idea of fingerprints never repeating?

And?

As I said earlier, DNA is far more accurate than fingerprinting, and that is a GOOD thing.

 

[martybegan]

yea, they are. you can be arrested for failing to pay your taxes. for non violent crimes. why do they need a fingerprint for those? why do they need DNA? you can be arrested for a peaceful protest. for excercising your first amendment right. but you get finger printed and a mugshot. now they will take your dna too? more government over reach

When arrested you need to be identified. These thing identify you.

We are also forgetting that DNA can HELP someone accused of a crime. if you have a rape victim and the perp left DNA evidence behind, if you are somehow arrested and didnt do it, the DNA evidence could show it and eliminate you as a suspect, thus saving your ass from jail/trial and possible false conviction.

All the DNA shows is if you were there or not.

You really do live in an alternate universe, don't you?

Again a non answer.

 

[g5000]

We already do the same thing with fingerprints, all this does is extend the same thing to DNA profiling.

Fingerprints can tell police if you have a genetic disease? Since when?

DNA sequencing used in evidence comparison cant tell you that either.

Good luck getting that through some of the denser skulls here.

 

[Spoonman]

Your fingerprints can be taken at your arrest, prior to conviction, and used against you for past and future crimes, as well. As can your mugshot.

It is a lot harder to collect fingerprints from a crime scene than most people think. For example, did you know that people who wash dishes constantly do not leave fingerprints? On top of that, science is actually challenging the entire idea of fingerprints never repeating?

that does not change the fact that fingerprints can be taken during arrest, and can be used to compare to evidence from previous crimes. DNA profiling as we currently perform it is nothing more than a higher tech more comprehensive version of the fingerprint.

You still have to leave something behind at the crime scene, just like with finger prints.

i go to a convenience store everyday. my dna is all over the place. I even show up on the security tapes everyday. I have a pistol carry permit. one day the clerk shows up shot. It must have been me right?

 

[g5000]

It is a lot harder to collect fingerprints from a crime scene than most people think. For example, did you know that people who wash dishes constantly do not leave fingerprints? On top of that, science is actually challenging the entire idea of fingerprints never repeating?

that does not change the fact that fingerprints can be taken during arrest, and can be used to compare to evidence from previous crimes. DNA profiling as we currently perform it is nothing more than a higher tech more comprehensive version of the fingerprint.

You still have to leave something behind at the crime scene, just like with finger prints.

i go to a convenience store everyday. my dna is all over the place. I even show up on the security tapes everyday. I have a pistol carry permit. one day the clerk shows up shot. It must have been me right?

You're the only customer, eh?

Your DNA is all over the place? Are you spitting on the floor, or something? Jacking off by the beer cooler?

Are you the only person on the security tapes? Are you the only person who visits that place and flings DNA all over the place?

Critical thinking is not your strong suit.

 

[martybegan]

It is a lot harder to collect fingerprints from a crime scene than most people think. For example, did you know that people who wash dishes constantly do not leave fingerprints? On top of that, science is actually challenging the entire idea of fingerprints never repeating?

that does not change the fact that fingerprints can be taken during arrest, and can be used to compare to evidence from previous crimes. DNA profiling as we currently perform it is nothing more than a higher tech more comprehensive version of the fingerprint.

You still have to leave something behind at the crime scene, just like with finger prints.

i go to a convenience store everyday. my dna is all over the place. I even show up on the security tapes everyday. I have a pistol carry permit. one day the clerk shows up shot. It must have been me right?

You can say the same thing about fingerprints. Should they need a warrant for those as well? That is the crux of the argument.

And unless you are doing naughty things in the store, your DNA is not ALL OVER THE PLACE. A hair here or there is not something they are going to find or even tie to the crime as alot of other peoples hair is here and there.

Now if you ass raped the clerk after shooting him (hypothetically of course) that would leave evidence behind (no pun intended) that would probably be the focus of a police investigation.

 

[Spoonman]

Fingerprints can tell police if you have a genetic disease? Since when?

DNA sequencing used in evidence comparison cant tell you that either.

Good luck getting that through some of the denser skulls here.

yes, and the patriot act is ok because after all they are only looking for the bad guys

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

This is something that protects the public in 2 ways.

One from false arrest.

Two from dangerous people.

It's a win win.

How does it protect people from false arrest when they have to be arrested before the police can take the DNA?

How does it protect the public from dangerous people? Does it give the police a time machine so they can go back and stop a crime before the guy they know is going to do it has a chance?