U S Supreme Court Decides D N A Samples Can Be Taken From Arrestees

[chiang mai]

Coming up next in the USA: collecting and storing DNA at birth. Collecting and storing DNA of anyone arrested anywhere for any offense. Compulsory universal National ID card, as in Thailand and many other countries. Welcome to the National Security State.

It's not the world we knew as lads, alas.

Those are all reasonable and sensible things to do in my book, why not. Let's face it, everyone has to carry ID in most countries and most folks in the US have been fingerprinted at some time, what you suggest is merely an extention of what exists already.,

[watcharacters]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

.

I think you are not correct in that belief. Have you heard of innocent people being released after years of being wrongfully incarcerated?

[transam]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

.

I think you are not correct in that belief. Have you heard of innocent people being released after years of being wrongfully incarcerated?

IF a crime and a suspect then DNA will go towards proving it, if a crime and no suspect DNA will help to find a suspect and THEN they can try and prove it. Will make solving stuff a lot easier instead of murderers etc still out there walking the streets.

[chiang mai]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

You ever hear of the 4th amendment?

It's not about innocence or guilt. It's about invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure, which has taken a major blow since 2001. The police can now search your cell phone without a warrant. They can cross-reference you call records, emails, texts, social media posts, personal relationships, employment records, etc all without a warrant these days. Hell, the Oregon legislature just passed a bill forbidding anyone smoking in a car that has other occupants. The knee-jerk progressives are just about complete in turning the US from a bastion of individuality and entrepreneurial spirit into a flock of sheep that nurse on the tit of the government. Makes me want to puke just thinking about it.

If you don't want to have your privacy invaded it would seem to me that having your DNA on file is one way to ensure that doesn't happen, ditto unreasonable serach and seizure.

[Mosha]

Last year on Discovery, about forensics in Australia. An elderly woman was badly beaten and killed, in her house which was in an isolated area. The only clue was an engorged leach on the carpet. The officer took a blood sample from the victim, and took the sample with the leach to the lab. Years later, police pulled a suspected drunk driver over. He failed the test, and a blood sample taken. The sample matched the sample from the leach, and when confronted with the evidence the killer confessed.

Not sure if this is the same "leech" story, but in this one it doesn't seem like the elderly woman was killed? But the embellishment makes it sound way cooler.

Crime-fighting leech cracks Australian cold case

Leech was found at crime scene eight years ago

DNA from human blood extracted from the creature was added to database

Match was found during a routine cross-check of suspect in another case

October 20, 2009 --

DNA from blood in a leech found at a crime scene was used to convict a criminal in Australia. In what Australian officials are calling a first in their country -- and possibly in the world -- police used DNA extracted from a leech that bit Cannon eight years ago to convict him of robbing an elderly woman. "I haven't heard of it being done in Australia before. I am not aware of it being done elsewhere in the world," Pam Scott of Forensic Science Service of Tasmania told CNN affiliate ABC News.

Cannon and an accomplice broke into the rural home of a 71-year-old woman in Tasmania, Australia's southernmost state, in 2001. They tied her to a chair, poked her with sticks, and robbed her of $504 (AUS $550), authorities said. Arriving officers found little in the way of evidence, except for an engorged leech on the floor next to the chair. "None of the police who were there had any evidence of a leech bite on them and neither did the victim. So it was logical that perhaps it was related to one of the offenders and it was taken on that basis," Inspector Mick Johnston told ABC.

Samples of DNA taken from the leech were added to a database. The case languished until last year, when Cannon was picked up on a drug offense. Following routine, investigators cross-checked Cannon's DNA against a databank to see whether he was tied to other crimes. They found a match. "For the leech to latch onto the offender as he was probably traveling through the bush to get there, to drop off at the scene, to be found during the examination, and to extract the DNA sample from the blood in the leech -- you know, it's a fairly unique set of circumstances," Johnston said. Watch Johnston talk about leech case »

Cannon, 54, pleaded guilty to robbery on Monday. He will be sentenced Friday. His accomplice has not been caught.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/20/australia.crime.leech/

Faulty memory, I'd slept since it was on.

[chiang mai]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

.

I think you are not correct in that belief. Have you heard of innocent people being released after years of being wrongfully incarcerated?

Indeed I have, but I've never heard of anyone being falsely convicted on the basis of their mistaken DNA.

[NeverSure]

All of my life, no search of my property or my person could be conducted without a warrant issued by a judge. The person (cop?) asking for that warrant had to be able to articulate to that judge what is called "probable cause." This is a real slap. I can't think of a more invasive search of my person than taking my DNA. And DNA tests have been in error and some fraudulent. People have gone to prison for years due to mistakes or fraud in DNA tests.

And NO I don't have to carry ID and NO I don't have to show it to a cop. I don't even have to stop and talk to a cop unless I'm under arrest. If I'm arrested the cop has to then go to a judge and get a warrant for my arrest, clearly stating his probable cause. If the cop can't do that the judge refuses the cop and I am now the victim of false arrest.

If a cop tries to stop me while walking down the street I don't have to give him anything unless he says I'm under arrest. In fact my question to him is simple. "Officer, am I under arrest, or am I free to go?" Those are the two alternatives. Unless I'm under arrest I don't have to show ID. I can just keep walking. THIS IS FREEDOM.

If the cop thinks I'm carrying a gun he is SOL unless he knows I'm a criminal and forbidden to have it. That would be his probable cause. If he doesn't know I'm a criminal I can just keep walking. He doesn't have probable cause to believe I don't have a license, and he doesn't have probable cause to search me.

The exception is a traffic stop which is not a criminal but civil issue. Then I must show a driver's license, insurance and registration. That's it. I don't have to talk to him. I can just sit there and wait for him to hand me my ticket and drive off. he can't search me or my car unless he sees contraband through my windows and that's his probable cause.

Americans are used to freedom and security in their persons and possessions, and this is a real slap.

The officers should have to be required to go to a judge and get a warrant for that DNA, articulating their probable cause for needing it.

[NeverSure]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

.

I think you are not correct in that belief. Have you heard of innocent people being released after years of being wrongfully incarcerated?

Indeed I have, but I've never heard of anyone being falsely convicted on the basis of their mistaken DNA.

There's been a ton of it. You haven't been reading the thread? READ to your heart's content.

[chiang mai]

All of my life, no search of my property or my person could be conducted without a warrant issued by a judge. The person (cop?) asking for that warrant had to be able to articulate to that judge what is called "probable cause." This is a real slap. I can't think of a more invasive search of my person than taking my DNA. And DNA tests have been in error and some fraudulent. People have gone to prison for years due to mistakes or fraud in DNA tests.

And NO I don't have to carry ID and NO I don't have to show it to a cop. I don't even have to stop and talk to a cop unless I'm under arrest. If I'm arrested the cop has to then go to a judge and get a warrant for my arrest, clearly stating his probable cause. If the cop can't do that the judge refuses the cop and I am now the victim of false arrest.

If a cop tries to stop me while walking down the street I don't have to give him anything unless he says I'm under arrest. In fact my question to him is simple. "Officer, am I under arrest, or am I free to go?" Those are the two alternatives. Unless I'm under arrest I don't have to show ID. I can just keep walking. THIS IS FREEDOM.

If the cop thinks I'm carrying a gun he is SOL unless he knows I'm a criminal and forbidden to have it. That would be his probable cause. If he doesn't know I'm a criminal I can just keep walking. He doesn't have probable cause to believe I don't have a license, and he doesn't have probable cause to search me.

The exception is a traffic stop which is not a criminal but civil issue. Then I must show a driver's license, insurance and registration. That's it. I don't have to talk to him. I can just sit there and wait for him to hand me my ticket and drive off. he can't search me or my car unless he sees contraband through my windows and that's his probable cause.

Americans are used to freedom and security in their persons and possessions, and this is a real slap.

The officers should have to be required to go to a judge and get a warrant for that DNA, articulating their probable cause for needing it.

And I disagree hugely. In a society where we task a specific group to look after our welfare and our safety I prefer to to think that most rational law abiding people would prefer to co-operate with that group rather than hinder them and make them jump through hoops when they are trying to do their job.

[chiang mai]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

.

I think you are not correct in that belief. Have you heard of innocent people being released after years of being wrongfully incarcerated?

Indeed I have, but I've never heard of anyone being falsely convicted on the basis of their mistaken DNA.

There's been a ton of it. You haven't been reading the thread? READ to your heart's content.

Very sloppy NS, just picking one of the links for which you supplied a google link, the first one I looked at:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Reevaluating_Lineups_Why_Witnesses_Make_Mistakes_and_How_to_Reduce_the_Chance_of_a_Misidentification.php

The contents of this link argue exactly the same as I have that DNA testing reduces the chances of a mistake, I quote:

"Over 230 people, serving an average of 12 years in prison, have been exonerated through DNA testing in the United States, and 75% of those wrongful convictions (179 individual cases as of this writing) involved eyewitness misidentification".

It looks like DNA testing does as designed and it prevents innocent people being sent to jail!

[trompelemonde]

I can only really see this as a positive change.

I am not one to comment on the US, but in the UK the introduction of DNA testing has proven a lot of convicted people innocent and also shown the indeptitude of the police and the judiciary when the original conviction was made.

Most of the States in the US have capital punishment on the staute book, surely DNA testing would aid in establishing the required 'Ultimate Burden of Proof' in capital offence cases?

[F430murci]

Most of you guys are debating whether DNA collection is a good law enforcement tool. That is not the issue..

The issue is whether it's permissible under the 4th Amendment. As Scalia suggests, our founding fathers abhored the British general warrant searches. Our 4th was to provide protection against general warrant and warrantless searches.

This opinion is contrary to both the intent of the 4th and over a 100 of years of case law. Scalia agrees that DNA is an effective tool, but acknowledges the duty of the Court is to uphold the Constitution.

[lomatopo]

All of my life, no search of my property or my person could be conducted without a warrant issued by a judge.

Methinks you haven't been to one of the twenty-five states with "Stop and Identify" statutes recently? Or been subject to "probable cause" (AKA: having a skin color other than white)? Or flown commercially in the U.S. in the past ~ 12 years*? Or been stopped at a "sobriety roadblock"**?

* Supreme Court has dodged this one AFAIK.

** Supreme Court ruled constitutional in 1990.

It looks like DNA testing does as designed and it prevents innocent people being sent to jail!

{Since you specifically mention "exoneration"} Or at least released once the miscarriage of justice was uncovered, or before the wrongly convicted black male was executed, hopefully.

DNA 'mistakes': deliberate, accidental or just due to incompetence have probably occurred, just not discovered, yet. Once you fry the guy there is no DNA left anyway, so cook 'em quick, as they say in Tejas.

[Frank James]

i never thought I would agree with Justice Scalia, but this time, he's right.

[DRONGOH]

The difficulty is that the police can arrest nearly anyone for a serious crime and then take DNA and use it against the person, even if they wouldn't have arrested the person under normal circumstances.

You're not getting it. The legislation was passed so that ANYONE in ANY level of authority can arrest ANYONE for ANY or NO reason. Not geting it yet? Google it for "big brother" or "Nanny govt".

King Samir Shabazz may have the answer for you.

[NeverSure]

Indeed I have, but I've never heard of anyone being falsely convicted on the basis of their mistaken DNA.

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

.

I think you are not correct in that belief. Have you heard of innocent people being released after years of being wrongfully incarcerated?

There's been a ton of it. You haven't been reading the thread? READ to your heart's content.

Very sloppy NS, just picking one of the links for which you supplied a google link, the first one I looked at:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Reevaluating_Lineups_Why_Witnesses_Make_Mistakes_and_How_to_Reduce_the_Chance_of_a_Misidentification.php

The contents of this link argue exactly the same as I have that DNA testing reduces the chances of a mistake, I quote:

"Over 230 people, serving an average of 12 years in prison, have been exonerated through DNA testing in the United States, and 75% of those wrongful convictions (179 individual cases as of this writing) involved eyewitness misidentification".

It looks like DNA testing does as designed and it prevents innocent people being sent to jail!

Under the Innocence Project, people were exonerated by their DNA after willingly giving it up, and long after DNA was well established. If an accused person wants to give his DNA to try to prove himself innocent, that's a far stretch from having it taken without probable cause.

[NeverSure]

I can only really see this as a positive change.

I am not one to comment on the US, but in the UK the introduction of DNA testing has proven a lot of convicted people innocent and also shown the indeptitude of the police and the judiciary when the original conviction was made.

Most of the States in the US have capital punishment on the staute book, surely DNA testing would aid in establishing the required 'Ultimate Burden of Proof' in capital offence cases?

If you are accused and convicted of a crime, then you could volunteer your DNA to exonerate yourself. Or if the police have probable cause they can ask the judge for a warrant to take it.

But this ruling sucks.

[NeverSure]

All of my life, no search of my property or my person could be conducted without a warrant issued by a judge. The person (cop?) asking for that warrant had to be able to articulate to that judge what is called "probable cause." This is a real slap. I can't think of a more invasive search of my person than taking my DNA. And DNA tests have been in error and some fraudulent. People have gone to prison for years due to mistakes or fraud in DNA tests.

And NO I don't have to carry ID and NO I don't have to show it to a cop. I don't even have to stop and talk to a cop unless I'm under arrest. If I'm arrested the cop has to then go to a judge and get a warrant for my arrest, clearly stating his probable cause. If the cop can't do that the judge refuses the cop and I am now the victim of false arrest.

If a cop tries to stop me while walking down the street I don't have to give him anything unless he says I'm under arrest. In fact my question to him is simple. "Officer, am I under arrest, or am I free to go?" Those are the two alternatives. Unless I'm under arrest I don't have to show ID. I can just keep walking. THIS IS FREEDOM.

If the cop thinks I'm carrying a gun he is SOL unless he knows I'm a criminal and forbidden to have it. That would be his probable cause. If he doesn't know I'm a criminal I can just keep walking. He doesn't have probable cause to believe I don't have a license, and he doesn't have probable cause to search me.

The exception is a traffic stop which is not a criminal but civil issue. Then I must show a driver's license, insurance and registration. That's it. I don't have to talk to him. I can just sit there and wait for him to hand me my ticket and drive off. he can't search me or my car unless he sees contraband through my windows and that's his probable cause.

Americans are used to freedom and security in their persons and possessions, and this is a real slap.

The officers should have to be required to go to a judge and get a warrant for that DNA, articulating their probable cause for needing it.

And I disagree hugely. In a society where we task a specific group to look after our welfare and our safety I prefer to to think that most rational law abiding people would prefer to co-operate with that group rather than hinder them and make them jump through hoops when they are trying to do their job.

What job are they trying to do? If I'm arrested for something which needs no DNA, say drunk driving, taking a sample of my DNA has nothing to do with an oppressive government taking my DNA.

Since when do the police look after my welfare and safety? The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty (aren't "tasked") to protect me. I can protect myself.

[JDGRUEN]

Last year on Discovery, about forensics in Australia. An elderly woman was badly beaten and killed, in her house which was in an isolated area. The only clue was an engorged leach on the carpet. The officer took a blood sample from the victim, and took the sample with the leach to the lab. Years later, police pulled a suspected drunk driver over. He failed the test, and a blood sample taken. The sample matched the sample from the leach, and when confronted with the evidence the killer confessed.

In this case - it would seem that the police had 'probable cause' to take the blood sample - suspected drunk - alcohol content to be verified. The U.S. Supreme court case says no probable cause is needed to take the blood - just an arrest for any reason - unrelated to the need for a blood sample is okay ... This is not good.

[Publicus]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

I think that statement is in the book of "Famous Last Words."

[I Like Thai]

Last year on Discovery, about forensics in Australia. An elderly woman was badly beaten and killed, in her house which was in an isolated area. The only clue was an engorged leach on the carpet. The officer took a blood sample from the victim, and took the sample with the leach to the lab. Years later, police pulled a suspected drunk driver over. He failed the test, and a blood sample taken. The sample matched the sample from the leach, and when confronted with the evidence the killer confessed.

In this case - it would seem that the police had 'probable cause' to take the blood sample - suspected drunk - alcohol content to be verified. The U.S. Supreme court case says no probable cause is needed to take the blood - just an arrest for any reason - unrelated to the need for a blood sample is okay ... This is not good.

Why was his DNA tested in a DUI instance. Should they not just be checking for alcohol levels ?

[Publicus]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

You ever hear of the 4th amendment?

It's not about innocence or guilt. It's about invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure, which has taken a major blow since 2001. The police can now search your cell phone without a warrant. They can cross-reference you call records, emails, texts, social media posts, personal relationships, employment records, etc all without a warrant these days. Hell, the Oregon legislature just passed a bill forbidding anyone smoking in a car that has other occupants. The knee-jerk progressives are just about complete in turning the US from a bastion of individuality and entrepreneurial spirit into a flock of sheep that nurse on the tit of the government. Makes me want to puke just thinking about it.

I was with you until you got to the "knee-jerk progressives" part of your post.

You're an informed and aware person, so you should know the Supreme Court justices and their respective world view.

The usual suspects that form the conservative majority were there in the 5-4 vote of the nine justices -Thomas, Alitio, Roberts, Kennedy. Their fifth vote this time was the liberal Justice Breyer. Breyer in this case went from his usual dissenting liberal side of the minority to the prevailing conservative majority side.

Justice Scalia, who is usually in the majority went over to the minority losing side of the argument. You'd know that Scalia is consistently with (and makes) the conservative majority of five - add Scalia to these four, and we get the usual suspects of the conservative majority of five.

However, Scalia left the other four conservatives. They in turn were joined by a usual suspect in the liberal minority, Justice Breyer Breyer is normally a part of the liberal minority of four, the other three justices of the consistent liberal minority being Kagan, Gingsberg, Sotomayor.

So you, who likes the usual conservative majority group, and I, who likes the consistent liberal minority group, share the views expressed by Justice Scalia in his opinion, which stated the view of the dissenting minority.

As the good conservative that you are, how would you account for the constitutional conservative, strict constructionist justices turning their backs on the 4th Amendment and all else that's good, decent and right?. Are these guys - Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts - the true conservatives they claim to be?

As conventional, i.e., political conservatives, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts predictably side with law enforcement and getting those criminals. Scalia most often takes the same view and position. This time, however, Scalia separated himself from the conservative herd to join the liberal minority. (Scalia is a regular guy so I'm not surprised to see him alongside three women. However, that doesn't explain it.)

What, is Scalia the only conservative on the court who's actually read the constitution?

[JDGRUEN]

Last year on Discovery, about forensics in Australia. An elderly woman was badly beaten and killed, in her house which was in an isolated area. The only clue was an engorged leach on the carpet. The officer took a blood sample from the victim, and took the sample with the leach to the lab. Years later, police pulled a suspected drunk driver over. He failed the test, and a blood sample taken. The sample matched the sample from the leach, and when confronted with the evidence the killer confessed.

In this case - it would seem that the police had 'probable cause' to take the blood sample - suspected drunk - alcohol content to be verified. The U.S. Supreme court case says no probable cause is needed to take the blood - just an arrest for any reason - unrelated to the need for a blood sample is okay ... This is not good.

Why was his DNA tested in a DUI instance. Should they not just be checking for alcohol levels ?

Using the blood sample for a DNA test - IMO should not have been allowed in this case - but the taking of the blood was justified by probable cause. Of course this was Australian Law - not U.S. Law