Collecting DNA From Arrestees Is Unconstitutional, California Court Says

Collecting DNA From Arrestees Is Unconstitutional, California Court Says

www.wired.com

A California appeals court is striking down a voter-approved measure requiring every adult arrested on a felony charge to submit a DNA sample.

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Proposition 69 amounted to unconstitutional, warrantless searches of arrestees. More than 1.6 million samples have been taken following the law’s 2009 implementation.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I am all for collecting DNA from violent CONVICTED felons but not from someone who was just arrested. I hope they are forced to destroy all the DNA information they have already collected. I am sure this will face more challenges in the coming years and I hope the court stands firm and other states are discouraged from this practice.





www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

NJot surprised by anything done in California anymore. Way to help the felons avoid potential other convictions based upon the evidence. We are all worrried about convicting the innocent, but never the guilty.

.......“The United States Supreme Court has never permitted suspicionless searches aimed at uncovering evidence of crime outside the context of convicted offenders.”


“The question this case presents, which is increasingly presented to the courts of this state and nation, is the extent to which technology can be permitted to diminish the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment,” the court wrote.

California argued that DNA evidence is an effective crime-solving tool. The court, ruling 3–0, found that argument immaterial.

“But even if DNA testing of arrestees was demonstrably valuable to law enforcement, the effectiveness of a crime fighting technology does not render it constitutional,” the court wrote.

Will it stand? I hope it does. In the tiniest baby steps the justice system in this country has migrated from presumption of innocence to the expedience of guilt.

It's like they want to believe "Everyone is guilty of something." I sort of wish they would apply that to career politicians.... Perhaps, that way, we could avoid a few future abuses....

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
NJot surprised by anything done in California anymore. Way to help the felons avoid potential other convictions based upon the evidence. We are all worrried about convicting the innocent, but never the guilty.

Spoken like someone who believes that if you are arrested, you must be guilty of something..... Let's hope you are never wrongly accused. I suspect the irony would be lost on you.

EDIT TO ADD:

Congress members as of 2000:

-----------www.ontheissues.org...

After researching public records, newspaper articles, civil court transcripts, and criminal records, Capitol Hill Blue discovered that:

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.

* 7 have been arrested for fraud.

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.

* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.

* 3 have been arrested for assault.

* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a
credit card.

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.

* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.

* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity. Capitol Hill Blue did not list the names of all the individual members of Congress accused of the various crimes, but did note that some were "serial offenders" with extensive tracks records of fraud or violence.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps its a hoax? But somehow I doubt it. Do you think they should all have their DNA taken? Do you think they would have claimed "immunity?"

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
NJot surprised by anything done in California anymore. Way to help the felons avoid potential other convictions based upon the evidence. We are all worrried about convicting the innocent, but never the guilty.

The whole point is, though, when they take the DNA they are taking it from people who haven't been convicted of anything yet. You could be an innocent bystander, arrested on suspicion of something, and then later charges are dropped. But they still have your DNA.

Talk about a contentious subject! I see both sides of this myself, and there are good and bad. Overall, I wholeheartedly support DNA collection and central storage. If handled properly and technology is used to it's fullest extent, this is the first technology to make it possible to end crime ALMOST entirely, given time to work. Think about it. Even a Shoplifter often leaves SOME DNA. That little type of case is silly until technology gets much further in quick and easy DNA scans, but the example is valid enough. It's rather hard to remain a criminal when one is leaving signed notes of responsibility at every crime scene, however trivial the crime.

It seems to me there are ways that people can figure this out in good faith that both handles crime in a totally new way to benefit everyone, and handles DNA in such a way as to not see it used to classify and punish innocent people on things like medical genetic markers.

Of course the downside is privacy and being scanned when you're innocent. That is a problem, and I use this argument VERY VERY sparingly these days, but in this case, I really think the benefits outweigh the downsides. If the downsides include something other than abuse of records for medical information, and privacy just for the sake of saying we have privacy, please tell me. I'd be interested to hear if I have missed something that really matters and would really be in play.

Interesting. They might as well stop taking fingerprints and photos also. DNA has been shown to exonerate individuals. What would someone have to hide? If i was innocent upon arrest I would want them to have as much information on me as possible. If you got nothing to hide. You got nothing to worry about. Anywho good find. Flag for You!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
If the downsides include something other than abuse of records for medical information, and privacy just for the sake of saying we have privacy, please tell me. I'd be interested to hear if I have missed something that really matters and would really be in play.

How about the frightening eugenics possibilities? Consider that soon the tech will be available to run dna scans at a distance. Then they run your dna through a computer and decide that your genes make you too "medically expensive" to keep around as you show predispositions for heart disease, several cancers, and maybe some other "expensive" diseases. Your insurance company and/or the government decide then to drop your coverage or deny any claims you may submit. Or just tie up the claims process long enough until you die waiting for an answer. Later uses for the tech could include scanning babies prenatally to determine if they are "viable" in the "long term". Or maybe even determining if you should be allowed to procreate at all? Agenda 21 anybody?
Also consider this. How far are we from dna recognition scanners? Perhaps the state decides that you are undesirable and releases to the media that you are wanted for pedophilia, rape, murder or some such. They use facial recognition, so you get plastic surgery, but how do you hide your dna? Anybody remember the movie Gattaca?

Gattaca

Think of it this way.
If they have your DNA.
They can make it look like you've done something.
If they wanted to.
Convicted=yes.
Arrested=NO!

reply to post by shtf2012

True. Planting evidence? Cops would never do such things.....or would they? Some already have.

This is a tricky issue that tears me in half. I understand the civil liberties concern of collecting DNA from anyone who is arrested and have yet to face the courts. On the other hand DNA collection and cross referencing it in the system could very well help in solving a case and bringing justice to an uncaught criminal.

Several cases in recent memory where suspects in one crime had already been detained and/or released for another unconnected crime. Another circumstance... Parolees that go on crime sprees upon release etc etc

It's a slippery slope when you consider that we fingerprint everyone arrested anyway and most departments do it digitally nowadays. Technology has certainly evolved and advances in DNA collection and analysis have certainly cleared many who have been wrongfully imprisoned in the first place.

I think this is just a subtle way to keep the crooks out of California's over crowded and underfunded penal system. Cali is broke anyway, they probably can't afford the program....

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I really think the benefits outweigh the downsides.

So do I.

I often contemplate "the fear of doing something valuable - - for fear of it being corrupted".

Eye witness has been proven to be the worst in identifying a suspected perpetrator. But - that's still being used.

DNA has freed prisoners who have been convicted by eye witness testimonies.

So I support it.

It may sound a little rhetorical, but when you are arrested and booked they do take fingerprints don't they?

Now let me be clear, I 'm not endorsing the practice of collecting DNA samples from individuals who are arrested for felonies, but it seems that we are on one of those slippery slopes here. I could see a coherant arguement being made in support of the practice. All the same I don't like the idea, not that I'm planning on committing any felonies to test the law.

The constitutional argument using the 4th Amemndment may be a little shakey seing that if you are under arrest it may be assumed that there was probable cause. Sounds to me like this one is going to run it's way through the courts.

reply to post by Annee


The world surely is going to end now, that's 2 things you and I have agreed on in one day.
2nd.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee

 

The world surely is going to end now, that's 2 things you and I have agreed on in one day.
2nd.

Hey - - I'm really not liberal. Only on social things.

You know - - equal rights and all that.

Originally posted by sharkman
It may sound a little rhetorical, but when you are arrested and booked they do take fingerprints don't they?

Now let me be clear, I 'm not endorsing the practice of collecting DNA samples from individuals who are arrested for felonies, but it seems that we are on one of those slippery slopes here. I could see a coherant arguement being made in support of the practice. All the same I don't like the idea, not that I'm planning on committing any felonies to test the law.

The constitutional argument using the 4th Amemndment may be a little shakey seing that if you are under arrest it may be assumed that there was probable cause. Sounds to me like this one is going to run it's way through the courts.

edit on 10-8-2011 by sharkman because: (no reason given)

Yes, they do take fingerprints. The big difference that I see between fingerprints and DNA is with your fingerprints they can only identify you. With your DNA they can find out a host of other things about you such as racial make up, predisposition to disease, who your family members are. In a perfect world it would only be used to either clear or accuse you of a crime but the world is far from perfect.