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.
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.
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?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.
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.
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?
I am quite familiar with how DNA is used in court.
Any slippery slope fantasies that are on the order of how DNA could be used outside of a criminal prosecution to clone little Hitlers in Brazil are moot.
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
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.
In the specific case before the court it was. Maryland only does it for violent felonies.
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
so it isn't interpretation of the law as it was intended it is interpretation of the law as i want it to be.
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?
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
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
so it isn't interpretation of the law as it was intended it is interpretation of the law as i want it to be.
Do you understand what a conservative judge is vs a liberal judge?
Can your fingerprints be patented?Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?
DNA is. In fact, there are plenty of Medical Corporations out there that are working on Genetic Therapies and if they own the patent for YOUR DNA guess what? You have to pay them exorbitant prices for that therapy.
The Supreme Court just made it easier for the State to collect it for them. Not for you, for them.
Google DNA Patenting if you don't believe me.
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
Fingerprints have individual markers that allow police to look for a person who has diabetes? Mug shots have markers that tell police a person is Jewish?
What fracking universe do you live in? DNA lets police track down all your relatives, tie you to a specific population, determine if you are susceptible to breast cancer, and can even tell them if you are adopted. None of that is available to them with a fingerprint or a mug shot.
By the way, if arrest was actually probable cause there would be no need to take a person arrested before a judge to make sure there was probable cause for the arrest.
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?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.
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.
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.
Can your fingerprints be patented?Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?
DNA is. In fact, there are plenty of Medical Corporations out there that are working on Genetic Therapies and if they own the patent for YOUR DNA guess what? You have to pay them exorbitant prices for that therapy.
The Supreme Court just made it easier for the State to collect it for them. Not for you, for them.
Google DNA Patenting if you don't believe me.
Buy a gun and lots of ammo.
Or bend over and take it in the ass.
These are your choices, your only choices.
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.
A cheek swab is just an intrusive as making someone roll thier fingers in ink, maybe even less so.
As a disclaimer I am a supporter of the 4th amendment when it comes to needing a warrant for things like having a dog sniff around a house, using an infrared camera to scan a house for a hot room, looking at someones garbage, searching a car, etc.
What I dont see is how a DNA profile is any different than fingerprinting. It is just a higher tech version that is not limited to the ridges on your fingers. It is a form of identification, the evidence is left behind at the crime scene.
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
Fingerprints have individual markers that allow police to look for a person who has diabetes? Mug shots have markers that tell police a person is Jewish?
What fracking universe do you live in? DNA lets police track down all your relatives, tie you to a specific population, determine if you are susceptible to breast cancer, and can even tell them if you are adopted. None of that is available to them with a fingerprint or a mug shot.
By the way, if arrest was actually probable cause there would be no need to take a person arrested before a judge to make sure there was probable cause for the arrest.
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
Fingerprints have individual markers that allow police to look for a person who has diabetes? Mug shots have markers that tell police a person is Jewish?
What fracking universe do you live in? DNA lets police track down all your relatives, tie you to a specific population, determine if you are susceptible to breast cancer, and can even tell them if you are adopted. None of that is available to them with a fingerprint or a mug shot.
By the way, if arrest was actually probable cause there would be no need to take a person arrested before a judge to make sure there was probable cause for the arrest.
From the ruling, to which I linked above:
Marylands 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.
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
Fingerprints have individual markers that allow police to look for a person who has diabetes? Mug shots have markers that tell police a person is Jewish?
What fracking universe do you live in? DNA lets police track down all your relatives, tie you to a specific population, determine if you are susceptible to breast cancer, and can even tell them if you are adopted. None of that is available to them with a fingerprint or a mug shot.
By the way, if arrest was actually probable cause there would be no need to take a person arrested before a judge to make sure there was probable cause for the arrest.
I find this post very amusing. You are clearly a person who has no clue how DNA is used for law enforcement or in the criminal justice system.
Which is why I made the Boys From Brazil reference earlier.
