High court authorizes routine DNA collection

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is nice. Keep posting things that are completely irrelevant if it makes you feel better.

The decision allows every police force to collect DNA for any arrest despite the fact that Maryland law restricts it to felony arrests. It also imposes no requirement to destroy the sample if a person is not convicted. I suggest you take the time to read the dissent instead of using your wonderful ability to agree with the power of the state to do intrusive searches in order to actually understand the issues involved.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

That is nice. Keep posting things that are completely irrelevant if it makes you feel better.

The decision allows every police force to collect DNA for any arrest despite the fact that Maryland law restricts it to felony arrests. It also imposes no requirement to destroy the sample if a person is not convicted. I suggest you take the time to read the dissent instead of using your wonderful ability to agree with the power of the state to do intrusive searches in order to actually understand the issues involved.

Do they destroy fingerprint and mugshots if you are not convicted?

You are in the system, keep the evidence

 

[Spoonman]

From the ruling, to which I linked above:
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.

That is nice. Keep posting things that are completely irrelevant if it makes you feel better.

The decision allows every police force to collect DNA for any arrest despite the fact that Maryland law restricts it to felony arrests. It also imposes no requirement to destroy the sample if a person is not convicted. I suggest you take the time to read the dissent instead of using your wonderful ability to agree with the power of the state to do intrusive searches in order to actually understand the issues involved.

Do they destroy fingerprint and mugshots if you are not convicted?

You are in the system, keep the evidence

shouldn't they?

 

[OriginalShroom]

I like the way some people have changed the language of the ruling.

According the article, it is after arrest for a "Serious" crime.. Yet some are now claiming it is a "Violent" crime.

A huge difference between the two and changing the language of the ruling to attempt to support your argument is .... well.... I am sure you can figure it out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If DNA is no different than fingerprints was does Maryland law specifically require police not to process it until after they have arraigned someone? Fingerprints are routinely compared to local, state, and national databases in order to verify the identity of the person who is arrested, DNA is not.

Your argument doesn't work, which is why my comparison to Hot Wheels makes just as much sense as your comparison to fingerprints.

 

[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.

That is nice. Keep posting things that are completely irrelevant if it makes you feel better.

The decision allows every police force to collect DNA for any arrest despite the fact that Maryland law restricts it to felony arrests. It also imposes no requirement to destroy the sample if a person is not convicted. I suggest you take the time to read the dissent instead of using your wonderful ability to agree with the power of the state to do intrusive searches in order to actually understand the issues involved.

It does not address DNA sampling for every arrest. Whether you like it or not.

You should read it.

 

[rightwinger]

That is nice. Keep posting things that are completely irrelevant if it makes you feel better.

The decision allows every police force to collect DNA for any arrest despite the fact that Maryland law restricts it to felony arrests. It also imposes no requirement to destroy the sample if a person is not convicted. I suggest you take the time to read the dissent instead of using your wonderful ability to agree with the power of the state to do intrusive searches in order to actually understand the issues involved.

Do they destroy fingerprint and mugshots if you are not convicted?

You are in the system, keep the evidence

shouldn't they?

If you were arrested and not convicted of previous rapes, I prefer that your name still remain in the system

 

[g5000]

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.

If DNA is no different than fingerprints was does Maryland law specifically require police not to process it until after they have arraigned someone? Fingerprints are routinely compared to local, state, and national databases in order to verify the identity of the person who is arrested, DNA is not.

Your argument doesn't work, which is why my comparison to Hot Wheels makes just as much sense as your comparison to fingerprints.

I would bet DNA is not entered into the database until after arraignment as a sop to an ignorant state legislator who came up with the Boys From Brazil objection during the legislative process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That was not an ad hominen attack, but I will be happy to educate the drooling idiot that think it is of the difference.

The real world has lots of innocent people in prison. There are cases where the state had proof they did not commit the crime, and wen ahead with the trial anyway, and didn't mention the evidence that would have got them off even though they are required to do so. That is why I want to know what color the sky is where you live, because in the real world it is blue, not sparkly golden like it must be in your world, where the state never deliberately withholds evidence.

Want to tell me again how I don't have an argument, and then try to say that I insulted you by expressing a natural curiosity about the wonderful place you live?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You know this because you actually do DNA testing in police labs? OR do you know this because you know it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Nor does it change the fact that fingerprints are used to identify people, not convict them of random crimes. Fingerprint evidence is rarely collected because it is pretty much useless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No one currently has any idea how accurate DNA is. Given the fact that fingerprints are not nearly as accurate as most people believe, maybe we shouldn't believe DNA is better just because someone says so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That law you are so fond off specifically treats fingerprints and DNA differently. Why would that happen if DNA is no different than fingerprints?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You've been watching to much CSI.

Most labs don't have that type of gear.

By the way..DNA can't tell what religion you are..

Most "labs" don't have any gear.

That doesn't make it impossible for something to get done if someone is willing to spend the money.

 

[Murhy]

Scenerio:

Joe-Bob rapes Jane.
Joe-Bobs DNA pulled from Jane.
Joe-Bobs DNA is not on file.
Joe-Bob gets away.

Scenerio:

Everyones DNA sequence put into massive database upon birth

Joe-Bob rapes Jane
Joe-Bobs DNA pulled from Jane and identified.
Jo-Bob caught.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Excuse me, asshole.

I did not make the claim that DNA is no different than fingerprints, did I? Police labs cannot check for the presence of exotic poisons, like ricin. Does that mean that if I killed someone with ricin I would be able to get away with it? Or would the police send the sample to facilities that could check for those poisons? I know that police labs do not do that type of thing normally, but the simple fact is that DNA is there, and it can be checked for other things outside the scope of the local lab.

Come to think of it, most police use state labs or private contractors. Some even send stuff to the FBI.

Damn, I guess that makes your argument even dumber than I thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Show me where the DNA mapping used by police from a cheek swab includes mapping for diabetes, breast cancer or religion

Are you going to claim the police are going to clone you next?

Show me where I said that the police actually do that. What I said is that it is possible to do it with DNA, but impossible to do with fingerprints or a mug shit. That leaves your claim that DNA is no different than a fingerprint or a mug shot looking a lot like Wile E right after he ran off the cliff.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you were arrested and not convicted of previous rapes, I prefer that your name still remain in the system

Yes, but you think that if someone is suspected of being in the Tea Party they should be compelled to submit DNA to the IRS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the ruling, to which I linked above:
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.

That is nice. Keep posting things that are completely irrelevant if it makes you feel better.

The decision allows every police force to collect DNA for any arrest despite the fact that Maryland law restricts it to felony arrests. It also imposes no requirement to destroy the sample if a person is not convicted. I suggest you take the time to read the dissent instead of using your wonderful ability to agree with the power of the state to do intrusive searches in order to actually understand the issues involved.

It does not address DNA sampling for every arrest. Whether you like it or not.

You should read it.

I did, I especially read the part where it said it was perfectly reasonable to take a DNA sample as part of normal booking procedure. I also missed the part where they defined serious offense. Care to point out what makes you think you have a better understanding of the decision than I do, especially since you have not addressed a single issue that Scalia raised in the dissent?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If DNA is no different than fingerprints was does Maryland law specifically require police not to process it until after they have arraigned someone? Fingerprints are routinely compared to local, state, and national databases in order to verify the identity of the person who is arrested, DNA is not.

Your argument doesn't work, which is why my comparison to Hot Wheels makes just as much sense as your comparison to fingerprints.

I would bet DNA is not entered into the database until after arraignment as a sop to an ignorant state legislator who came up with the Boys From Brazil objection during the legislative process.

That just shows your level of ignorance, which is only surpassed by your ability to ignore reality.