General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsU.S. appeals court finds collection of DNA upon arrest (not conviction) is constitutional
While we're distracted by Korans burning in Afghanistan, the reach of Big Brother expands at home
http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-finds-dna-testing-constitutional-012601061.html
California law enforcement officers can continue collecting DNA samples from adults arrested for felonies, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2004 California law requiring officials to collect the DNA samples does not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.
"DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the 2-1 majority. The government's interests in the genetic information outweigh any privacy concerns, the majority concluded.
Four California residents, who had been arrested for felonies but who were not convicted, filed a class action in 2009 against officials who run the state's DNA collection system. They asked the court to issue an order barring California from collecting DNA samples from people who were arrested but not convicted. The district court rejected that request, and the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.
More at the link. This is a very bad decision, imo. This will be expanded to include swabbing the cheek of anyone who is arrested for anything, and the DNA profiles will be kept in a national database forever. Sure, the article says "...the information is then stored in a nationwide database. Someone who is tested and not convicted can ask to have the sample destroyed and their DNA profile removed from the database." Does anyone honestly believe that the information, once obtained, will ever truly be deleted or destroyed?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and I said nothing, because I wasn't accused of any felony...
how does the rest of that go, now?
icymist
(15,888 posts)"These are not the droids we're looking for."
"Move along."
"Move along, move along."
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)It could though, be easily used to implicate the innocent. Disturbing.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Fingerprinting has been going on for decades. I don't see DNA as being any different in principle and the same case law should apply.
The court got it right.
Neue Regel
(221 posts)How much information about you can be gleaned from your DNA profile?
Therein lies the difference.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)What else would law enforcement care about?
Robb
(39,665 posts)DNA is a very, very, very good fingerprint.
Neue Regel
(221 posts)And even if law enforcement was the only group with access, it doesn't take much imagination to see how someone's DNA profile could be used for nefarious or discriminatory purposes by someone with an axe to grind. Have you ever seen the movie "Gattaca", for example?
I'm not in favor of handing over that much information to the government so they can conduct fishing expeditions. You and I disagree on the benevolence of the organizations who would own this data.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)It should remain within law enforcement until it is expunged as required by law. That should happen automatically if you are innocent, but I could live with a requirement that you have to petition to have it done.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)attempted to turn the arrests of the Occupy Los Angeles folks into felonies. Perhaps this is why.
This gives far too much power to acting out personal vendettas or making political power plays.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Necessary for everyone who does such work. That I could understand. I understand the reasoning behind fingerprinting arrested suspects. DNA though, is quite different. The number of things it could be used for...
Plenty of people are arrested for crimes they did not commit, some are convicted, as well. I don't have nearly enough faith in our system to think this is a good idea.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Just to make sure you are not a felon.
Can't have those kinds of people working in banks. They might be tempted to do something unethical.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)"California Attorney General Kamala Harris praised the ruling as "a victory for public safety in California." She said in a statement that the collection of DNA from adult felony arrestees had helped solve thousands of crimes."
Again, why I am not registered with any political party.
