Despite objections, DNA sampling expands

[flashl]

When Democratic members of Maryland’s House of Delegates gathered last week to discuss legislative proposals, black lawmakers soon walked out of the meeting in frustration.

...

The debate in Maryland, which this week ended in a compromise between O’Malley and black legislators, underscores the conflict between tough law enforcement and civil liberties, as states and the federal government greatly expand the pool of Americans from whom DNA samples can be taken.

Congress and 12 states have authorized police to take DNA samples from arrestees, not just convicted felons, while at least 22 states have considered similar plans in 2008 alone — including Maryland. O’Malley is expected to sign an amended bill that allows for the destruction of DNA samples if suspects are arrested but not convicted, among other concessions demanded by the Black Caucus.

In South Dakota, Gov. Mike Rounds (R) this month signed a bill making the state the 12th to require the collection of DNA samples from arrestees. The others are Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Similar legislation has passed one legislative chamber in Michigan and both in Georgia.

...

At the federal level, the Department of Justice is finalizing rules, approved by Congress in 2005, that soon will require anyone arrested by federal authorities to provide a DNA sample, which will be converted into an electronic “profile” and stored in a vast computer database at the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Va.

Stateline

[selador]

1. fingerprints vs. dna

i support fingerprinting of arrestees.

i also support DNA fingerprinting. i see no substantive difference between the two in regards to privacy or other issues.

[Uncle Joe]

3. The difference is fingerprints being only identifying information, DNAs samples tell everything

about the makeup of your body, your family tree, diseases, or potential disease.

You may be happy with Bush's pushing of the envelope regarding the ongoing, non-stop invasion of personal privacy; warrant less wiretapping, the firing of District Attorneys that don't believe in political prosecution, while trashing the Fourth Amendment and simultaneously placing the executive beyond any public accountability whatsoever.

You may believe it perfectly natural for the "land of the free" and "home of the brave" to have a literal prison nation with a larger population; (in excess of two million) than any other country's prison population on planet Earth, most of those for non-violent drug offenses. It might even seem perfectly fine to you for corporations to profit from the imprisonment of the American People, although it wouldn't take much imagination to figure what their lobbyist's motivation would be for greasing the palms of the people's so called Representatives, one thing you can be sure of, it will never be for more freedom of the American People, or the elimination and or alleviation of an increasingly harsh police state.

While you may be fine with all of these things, what if we get an administration that is truly corrupted to the point of being pure evil, if Cheney/Bush isn't bad enough for you? I can see it now, people reminiscing about Cheney/Bush saying they weren't really so bad compared to our current administration, just as some are doing about Nixon today, it's all relative and it's all a slippery slope to eventual "Big Brother" fascism.

One final question, and this is open to anyone, when is the last time the individual American won more freedom or privacy instead of having it slowly eroded or smothered as in the grasp of a constrictor snake.

Edit for P.S. Have you been tazed today?

[selador]

6. yes

that;s why i said "substantive" :)

fwiw, at least with CURRENT technology DNA don't tell anything. you can't look at DNA and say the guy is 5'10 white male with blue eyes

it encodes that, but we can't decipher it.

"You may be happy with Bush's pushing of the envelope regarding the ongoing, non-stop invasion of personal privacy; warrant less wiretapping, the firing of District Attorneys that don't believe in political prosecution, while trashing the Fourth Amendment and simultaneously placing the executive beyond any public accountability whatsoever."

this has exactly ZERO to do with bush. it has to do with this specific policy. i support it. regardless of who ispresident.

"You may believe it perfectly natural for the "land of the free" and "home of the brave" to have a literal prison nation with a larger population; (in excess of two million) than any other country's prison population on planet Earth, most of those for non-violent drug offenses. It might even seem perfectly fine to you for corporations to profit from the imprisonment of the American People, although it wouldn't take much imagination to figure what their lobbyist's motivation would be for greasing the palms of the people's so called Representatives, one thing you can be sure of, it will never be for more freedom of the American People, or the elimination and or alleviation of an increasingly harsh police state."

yawn. more strawmen crap.

"One final question, and this is open to anyone, when is the last time the individual American won more freedom or privacy instead of having it slowly eroded or smothered as in the grasp of a constrictor snake."

this happens frequently. do you keep up with case law. as an LEO i get the digest every month. and just within my state, there are NUMEROUS examples of rights being expanded either through legislation or judicial finding. happens all the time.

i could give you NUMEROUS examples if you are ACTUALLY interested.

but it sounds to me like you are more interested in rhetoric vs. facts.

and guess what? i have little doubt that this same dna policy would have been approved under gore or kerry.

and certainly clinton

as somebody who actually testifies in court and deals with constitutional law issues every day, i can say unequivocally that laws are frequently passed, and decisions are frequently rendered that expand rights.

i hope the same happens in DC vs. Heller.

recall also recently the anti-sodomy-law decision by the scotus. that certainly expanded rights.

"Edit for P.S. Have you been tazed today?"

no. i've only been tased once. i've tased ZERO people even in a period of time where i have made scores of arrests. i have been present when people have been tased by other officers. the last was a guy who was fighting pursuant to an arrest for multiple warrants, and we also had PC on him for stalking.

[Uncle Joe]

7. The keyword here is

current DNA technology, this isn't static.

Then if Adolf Hitler Jr. were to become President you would support it, and if you were a Jew, DNA can trace that even if you tried to hide your heritage. There are other ways this could be abused as well by a corrupt government, simply by framing someone with a sample of their DNA. That's just a couple of reasons as to why this is important or relevant and not the straw man you make it out to be.

You tell me there are numerous cases expanding freedom and privacy and cite none.

You can speculate all day long whether this DNA policy would've been approved under anyone, that doesn't change my opinion of the inherent dangers of it's use and the continual assault on individual freedom.

[selador]

9. godwin?

"Then if Adolf Hitler Jr. were to become President you would support it, "

ridiculous speculation. if he were to become president (assuming the sins of the father and all that ) DNA fingerprinting is the least of our worries.

"and if you were a Jew,"

who knows? maybe i am.

" There are other ways this could be abused as well by a corrupt government, simply by framing someone with a sample of their DNA. That's just a couple of reasons as to why this is important or relevant and not the straw man you make it out to be."

no, that wasn't the strawman at all.

fwiw, the govt. could (theoretically) already frame you with your DNA. or your fingerprints. OR perjured testimony.

last i checked we still allow DNA, fingerprints, and witness testimony

it's a ridiculous argument.

it's actually one i hear sometimes from people unfamiliar with criminal procedure etc. when making arguments like this.

ANY evidence gathering technique CAN be abused. ANY witness or "victim" can lie (see: duke case, etc.). we don't disallow evidence because it is POSSIBLE that somebody could be abusing it.

we don't disallow people from making criminal complaints because they COULD lie. ANY "victim" could be fabricating.

the issue is this. the procedure to recover DNA (much like fingerprinting) is minimally intrusive, and courts have correctly ruled (since LOOOOOONG before bush, that prisoners have limited privacy rights. that's why we can take their fingerprints in the first place.

and of course you ignored my other point - that constantly, case law and legislation expands rights. it is NOT one sided. i can tell you right now ex-post ladson (and several other decisions) that citizens of WA state have substantially wider recognized civil rights than they did 5 or 10 years ago.

the most important issue is this. DnA is a great tool. it helps FREE the innocent AND convict the guilty. that's a very good thing

[Uncle Joe]

10. Screw Godwin, if you believe the U.S. is immune to having a despot come to power,

that's a delusion and shouldn't be taken seriously. You can't keep evil from coming around by denying it's existence. No matter how highly we like to think of our selves as Americans, we're still human with all the faults and frailties every other civilization and previous empire through out history had ingrained in their DNA.

Some Jews hid from Hitler and the Nazis by claiming to be otherwise, DNA makes that virtually impossible. It's just another form of control and it is or is capable of becoming far more reaching in it's scope, than fingerprints.

I'm talking about he government's invasion of the individual's privacy and ability to abuse their power, not an individual's predication to falsely indict another. No matter how you label it, this is just another squeeze against the individual's freedom and control.

The way I see your version of expanding rights is similar to "enriched" white bread, where they take the fiber, and something like 26 minerals and vitamins out, put a handful back in after processing and then sell that as "enriched".

For every step toward more freedom and privacy there are at least two going backward, this is the dominant pattern.

Edit for P.S. As Hitler didn't have children, it's not sins of the father, it's a brand new tyrant, "Adolf Hitler Jr". is just an analogy for that.

[selador]

11. for pete's sake

get over it. this decision has NOTHING to do with bush.

"I'm talking about he government's invasion of the individual's privacy and ability to abuse their power, not an individual's predication to falsely indict another. No matter how you label it, this is just another squeeze against the individual's freedom and control."

it's a relatively new technology. it needs to (and has been) incorporated into constitutional and criminal procedure. as it should be.

you could say the same thing about fingerprints. i know some defense attorneys who believe that the govt. should require a warrant for fingerprints, too. so what? that's not consistent with (imo) a reading of the 4th amendment that makes any sense.

you can "see" any version of expanded rights you want. but it's divorced from reality. i read these decisions and have for 20 years, and i have SIGNIFICANT expansion in some areas, and erosion in others. but it's hardly a one way street

fwiw, in law enforcement i have seen greater erosion in civil rights as relates to the "everyman" in relation to DOMESTIC VIOLENCE legislation than from drug or terrorist investigations.

zero tolerance mandatory arrest procedures, violations of right to free association, entry to residences without warrants, etc. etc. in those areas we have seen much more common erosion of privacy rights, and other rights than drug or terrorist stuff fwiw. but nobody wants to admit it because domestic violence victims are sympathetic to the left. so, these laws get a free pass.

back to DNA. it is (imo) just as reasonable to take DNA from arrestees as it is to take fingerprints. plenty disagree. fine. but i would prefer to have a discussion of constitutional law vs. it's all bush's fault rhetoric. like i said, having been in law enforcement through several admin's, i can tell you that this would have happened most likely under gore, kerry, or anybody else. because it's a prettty simple const. law issue.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Again you keep missing my point,

it's all part of the same package, erosion of the individuals rights and privacy while the government continues to enhance it's own lack of accountability to the people. Also Bush is just an extreme symptom of an ongoing trend toward the accumulation of corporate or government power at the expense of the people. Having said that, to dismiss Bush's fault record out of hand is to dismiss the basis for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution it self. Upon which the whole argument of personal privacy and freedom from abusive or totalitarian government is based.

DNA is far more intrusive than fingerprints, and much farther down the slippery slope to Big Brother. It's more than just an identifier and a person shouldn't have to give it up just for being arrested without a warrant or conviction.

[selador]

13. no you keep missing my point - argue constitutional law not rhetoric

"it's all part of the same package, erosion of the individuals rights and privacy"

and i keep explaining to you, in many circumstances individual rights are EXPANDED and in others they are curtailed. to claim it's one sided DENIES reality and you keep doing it.

we have had federal and local decisions that significantly enhanced individual rights recently. the most obvious on the federal side was the scotus decision that outlawed anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. on the state side, i'd point to the ladson anti-pretext stop decision in WA state.

" while the government continues to enhance it's own lack of accountability to the people. Also Bush is just an extreme symptom of an ongoing trend toward the accumulation of corporate or government power at the expense of the people. Having said that, to dismiss Bush's fault record out of hand is to dismiss the basis for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution it self. Upon which the whole argument of personal privacy and freedom from abusive or totalitarian government is based."

that';s gr00vy but it has NOTHING to do with this case. this case has to do with a new technology that is just becoming COMMON in the same way that fingerprints were a century ago.

"DNA is far more intrusive than fingerprints,"

iyo. i disagree.

" and much farther down the slippery slope to Big Brother."

i again disagree.

" It's more than just an identifier and a person shouldn't have to give it up just for being arrested without a warrant or conviction."

then present a cogent argument based on constitutional law as to why that should be. since the de jure ruling is that you are wrong (based on state and federal jurisprudence) the burden is on YOU to prove otherwise. you haven't done so. your entire argument comes down to indictments of bushco and general trends.

nobody would argue that, for example, taking a blood sample, urine sample, etc. is FAR more intrusive than DNA.

DNA --- JUST LIKE FINGERPRINTS --- is routinely left on surfaces we touch. you can't spend any time in a room without leaving trace DNA. it's actually HARDER to prevent the leaving of DNA than it is fingerprints. in the latter case you just need to wear gloves.

so, present an ACTUAL argument based on constitutional law. but you don't do that. it's just rhetoric.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Your DNA will tell far more about you than your fingerprint, that's not rhetoric

that's a fact and I'm against random blood and urine tests as well. Stay the hell out of our bodies unless you have a warrant!

You don't believe in an ever-growing "Big Brother". This thread has a nice time line of how civil liberties have been eroded, and long before that we had the "War against Drugs", an obviously medical and educational condition turned in to a criminal one. A war in to perpetuity only to be followed by another the "War Against Terror", those are literally impossible to win and the only casualties will be further erosion of the American People's privacy and freedom. One step toward more freedom is followed by two steps back wards, that pattern is clear as a bell to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3067164

Regarding dejure rulings, slavery was a dejure ruling, based on state and federal jurisprudence and it was a general trend. I ask you what burden of proof prior to the Civil War overturned that ruling? There was no Constitutional law against slavery, indeed the Supreme Court upheld it, that didn't make it right.

Obviously from your post, you believe if technology allows it, there is no limit to government intrusion in to the sanctity of the individual's body or space.

[selador]

17. again... rhetoric not constitutional discussion

"that's a fact and I'm against random blood and urine tests as well. Stay the hell out of our bodies unless you have a warrant!"

random blood and urine tests are illegal. so, that's a strawman. the point was about DNA recovery.

"You don't believe in an ever-growing "Big Brother"."

i never said that. strawman AGAIN. and actually i think the threat is far greater from LITTLE brother (private industry) in terms of privacy.

private industry has FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more data on the avreage citizen than govt. has

" This thread has a nice time line of how civil liberties have been eroded, and long before that we had the "War against Drugs", an obviously medical and educational condition turned in to a criminal one. A war in to perpetuity only to be followed by another the "War Against Terror", those are literally impossible to win and the only casualties will be further erosion of the American People's privacy and freedom. One step toward more freedom is followed by two steps back wards, that pattern is clear as a bell to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Regarding dejure rulings, slavery was a dejure ruling, based on state and federal jurisprudence and it was a general trend. I ask you what burden of proof prior to the Civil War overturned that ruling? There was no Constitutional law against slavery, indeed the Supreme Court upheld it, that didn't make it right."

and i keep telling you THEN PRESENT A CONST. LAW ARGUMENT. you haven't. you simply make assertions. that's about as fact based as arguing with a creationist.

"Obviously from your post, you believe if technology allows it, there is no limit to government intrusion in to the sanctity of the individual's body or space. "

no. that's another strawman. but since you have no argument from your side, you put words into my mouth

i repeat... you can't show me how DNA collection is unduly invasive (and i have explained how it isn't... see: locard among others). you can't explain why collection of DNA from arrestees violates the 4th (or any other amendment), and since you are making the claim, the burden's on you

since i am against the drug war, i find it ironic that you bring it up. i also explained that the "war on domestic violence" has also caused erosion of some rights (notably free assocation and right to confront accuser).

but that's tangential to your rhetoric filled screeds. i want substance. you give me rhetoric.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Reread my post #12, I address "Little Brother" as well, that's my whole point

they are combined and that's not rhetoric.


"You don't believe in an ever-growing "Big Brother"."

i never said that. strawman AGAIN. and actually i think the threat is far greater from LITTLE brother (private industry) in terms of privacy.

private industry has FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more data on the avreage citizen than govt. has"


Again you keep missing my point,

it's all part of the same package, erosion of the individuals rights and privacy while the government continues to enhance it's own lack of accountability to the people. Also Bush is just an extreme symptom of an ongoing trend toward the accumulation of corporate or government power at the expense of the people. Having said that, to dismiss Bush's fault record out of hand is to dismiss the basis for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution it self. Upon which the whole argument of personal privacy and freedom from abusive or totalitarian government is based.

DNA is far more intrusive than fingerprints, and much farther down the slippery slope to Big Brother. It's more than just an identifier and a person shouldn't have to give it up just for being arrested without a warrant or convictio

[selador]

19. and again

all i see is kneejerk argumentation

present REASONS as to why DNA collection of arrestees (see: for example case law about diminished expectation of privacy in jail) violates the constitution.

i have yet to see ANYTHING resembling a constitutional argument.

so, apparently you don't have one.

at best, you have a weak policy argument, but even that isn't supported by any sort of facts, just rhetoric.

[Uncle Joe]

20. You need a warrant to search my house, don't you?

Why in the hell wouldn't you need one to probe the inner depths of what my physical body is made of?

I see this as violating the Fourth Amendment.

[selador]

21. ok

see, that's at least a reasonable question.

the answer is that (numerous case law and const. law examples dating back LONG before bush or clinton or even nixon) have firmly established that

1) arrestees have a diminised expectation of privacy

and that minimally or non-intrusive methods of gaining identification information are legal - those include fingerprinting, photographing, requiring signature, age, date of birth, place of birth, etc are all valid

that DNA gathering fits within the above structure, since one can get a DNA sample MERELY by rubbing a swab over skin surface (vs. blood/urine samples which are obviously much more intrusive)

another VERY important point is that people already routinely LEAVE DNA (and fingerprints) day to day in nearly every surface they touch.

it is 100% legal, for example, for a law enforcement officer to pick up a paper cup that you drank from in attempt to get DNA or fingerprints. NO warrant is required, and you don't have to be under arrest.

some facts:
1) analyzed DNA database samples have NO genetic trait information
2) since DNA databases were first created 14 yrs ago, privacy advocates have not found any instance where the databases or DNA samples were misuesed
3) it is supported even by many defendants rights counsels
4) in states that HAVE comprehensive DNA databases, they have much higher clearance rates.
5) DNA is routinely used to CLEAR wrongly accused individuals.
6) california prop 69 ALLOWS dna data to be expunged if an arrestee is later not convicted.
7) it enjoys support from both dems and repubs





some questions:
do you support DNA samples taken from criminals UPON conviction? for felonies and misdemeanors? or just felonies? or not even for convicted criminals?

[Uncle Joe]

22. I don't have a problem

with supporting DNA samples from convicted felons. I also understand the need for identification of arrestees, however that's as far as it goes without a warrant or the arrestees consent.


1) analyzed DNA database samples have NO genetic trait information
2) since DNA databases were first created 14 yrs ago, privacy advocates have not found any instance where the databases or DNA samples were misused

1. assumes the technology is static and if history is any guide it won't be and 2 is only to date.

"4) in states that HAVE comprehensive DNA databases, they have much higher clearance rates.
5) DNA is routinely used to CLEAR wrongly accused individuals."

4 & 5 Wouldn't be affect adversely by my proposal as posted above.

[selador]

23. ok

"with supporting DNA samples from convicted felons."


fair enough

" I also understand the need for identification of arrestees, however that's as far as it goes without a warrant or the arrestees consent. "

right. my point is that DNA is just ANOTHER form of identification, just like fingerprints or photos.

"1. assumes the technology is static and if history is any guide it won't be and 2 is only to date."

technology won't be static, that's for sure. and yes, 2 is only to date, but my point is almost anything CAN be abused. the fact that DNA database info has not been abused IS relevant to the discussion. iow, it's not a problem in reality, even if it is possible


"4 & 5 Wouldn't be affect adversely by my proposal as posted above"

they most certainly would. specifically 4. the comparison was made to virginia AFTEr virginia in 2002 incorporated DNA gathering via felony ARRESTS (not just convictions). that's where the clearance rate comparision comes from. ex post 2002 virginia. the proposal in california (prop 69) primary purpose is to extend DNA gathering to arrests, not just convictions

but nice to have a discussion with you on this. i appreciate the detached intelligent debate.

[Uncle Joe]

24. It's been a nice discussion with you as well,

however I see the potential for DNA technology advancement abuse in far greater terms than fingerprints. Particularly as at this point from what I can tell we both believe "Little Brother" is a major problem and I'm convinced "Big Brother" and "Little Brother" for all practical purposes have become one.



But I need to cut out for he evening so I bid you adieu as well.

[MADem]

2. Look, you join the military, they grab your DNA. People who have done nothing but serve their

country have to hand over a sample. I think they should require cops and firefighters to hand it over, too. Makes it easier to ID those remains.

Wonder how enthused they'd be in that situation?

[selador]

15. as a matter of collective bargaining

it would be an interesting discussion.

cops DO have diminished civil rights as to privacy (especially police applicants) as numerous case law examples show.

for example, i had to take a polygraph (which cannot even be required by any PRIVATE employer in my state), psychological exams (which we can't even require of criminal defendants, victims, etc. except in very limited circ's like when a defendant makes a mental health defense), give fingerprints, submit to invasive medical tests, give urine samples for drug use (some agencies can even use hair). etc. etc.

but since we have union and civil service protection, it wouldn't be a "gimme".

otoh, criminal defendants/arrestees are required to give fingerprints based on const. law that's perfectly valid AGAINST their will, and i have yet to see one cogent constitutional law based argument as to why DNA cannot also be taken from arrestees. i see just histrionic rubbish. no facts, no constitutional law, no rational argument

[MADem]

25. I think that the whole argument is based on "invasiveness" --but of course,

it USED to be invasive because they had to take a big old vial of blood to do it. Then, it became the finger stick, but the "invasive" argument still stood. Now, they can swab your cheek to do it. Hardly invasive at all, that. They can even get DNA off of fingernail scrapings.

Anything to do with "fluids"--even pee--they call invasive, but then, they mandate drug testing in collective bargaining! I haven't followed along terribly well, but I don't think there have been any challenges to DNAing convicted people.

And I know that cops sometimes get stuck giving DNA if they get clumsy at a messy crime scene, just as they have to give fingerprints to "exclude" them. Now, they're better about the gloves, but before they weren't.

It sure IS an interesting discussion. I have a feeling we're heading towards paying for everything with a fingerprint one day. Then you'll have crazy bastards running around chopping off fingers to use someone's ATM card...UNLESS the person can pick whatever finger they'd like to use, or maybe make it a combination of two or more fingerprints, like a PIN! Then, the thieves would have to chop off both hands and keep trying combos....and if they made the machine such that it detected a pulse, well, they'd have to kidnap the whole person, just like they do now, when they don't believe the person will give the real number!

And who knows, maybe there will come a time when they invent a machine that can "read" your DNA without pinching, poking, prodding, sticking or scraping...then we'd all be at the bottom of that slippery slope!

[selador]

26. invasiveness

"it USED to be invasive because they had to take a big old vial of blood to do it. Then, it became the finger stick, but the "invasive" argument still stood. Now, they can swab your cheek to do it. Hardly invasive at all, that. They can even get DNA off of fingernail scrapings. "

correct. there have been cases where they got DNA off of an envelope that somebody licked.

"Anything to do with "fluids"--even pee--they call invasive, but then, they mandate drug testing in collective bargaining! I haven't followed along terribly well, but I don't think there have been any challenges to DNAing convicted people"

no. it's not the fluids thang that makes it invasive. with the blood, it's the method (sticking a needle INTO somebody). with the urine, it's the inherently private nature of urination. spitting , otoh, is not viewed as "private". or a buccal swab.

"It sure IS an interesting discussion. I have a feeling we're heading towards paying for everything with a fingerprint one day. "

biometrics is a very interesting field. and as much as people are worried about privacy, if you've ever had your ID stolen, that is also a MAJOR concern.

the vast majority of people are hurt FAR more by identity thieves than by govt. having this kind of stuff to help prevent id thieves.

without biometrics, it's relatively easy. for example, joe blow if he has your name, dob, etc. memorized and is a similar age, etc. can use your info when getting pulled over by the cops for a ticket. then, when he doesn't pay , YOU get arrested for the suspended license. with biometrics, that's difficult. some police agencies now take fingerprints on citations when the person doesn't have ID.

retinal scans work VERY well as well.

A"nd who knows, maybe there will come a time when they invent a machine that can "read" your DNA without pinching, poking, prodding, sticking or scraping...then we'd all be at the bottom of that slippery slope!"

we are essentially already there. we can get DNA (sometimes) from something like a drinking glass, licked envelope, etc.

but this is no different from the slippery slope we have had w/fingerprints. we recover them ALL the time from suspects w/o a warrant or an arrest (if they aren't already on file)

it is 100% legal to surveil a suspect (w.o a warrant) , follow them, and wait until they discard something they touched or walk away from it, then we run in and get the fingerprints.

totally legal and not a 4th amendment concern because it falls under the plain view doctrine. the exact same thing CAN be done with DNA, it's just not as surefire (at present levels of technology).

[pleah]

4. This is dangerous ground.

"O'Malley is expected to sign an amended bill that allows for the destruction of DNA samples if suspects are arrested but not convicted" Do you really think that they intent to destroy this information?
I bet they don't.

[OKthatsIT]

29. Nope. It's owned by secret corporate research.

[juno jones]

5. And who is most of the information gathered going to be on?

Those Driving while black, brown or wearing funny clothes.

Think about it.

[SteinbachMB]

8. Cynicism

...is no excuse to thwart the advancement of law enforcement.

[selador]

14. it's just as valid

as taking fingerprints. i have yet to see a single argument based on constitutional law, precedent, etc. that explains why DNA should not be taken.

it's all rhetoric. it's about as fact filled as yer average creationist arguing against evolution.

that;s the level of discourse from the anti-DNA crowd here.

[flashl]

27. Or to "advance" a racial biased system in its 'Dragnets' or Court cases

Police in Charlottesville Suspend 'DNA Dragnet'

Charlottesville police have temporarily halted their practice of asking some black men to voluntarily provide DNA samples as part of the hunt for a serial rapist, Police Chief Timothy J. Longo Sr. said yesterday.

Longo, who is reexamining the months-long policy amid criticism from the black community and others, said he is confident that the DNA collection will continue once the department develops more "stringent, well-defined criteria" regarding which men will be asked to provide genetic samples.

Charlottesville police have asked 197 black men to submit to cheek swabs as part of the search for a rapist who has attacked at least six women since 1997. In most of those requests, police said, officers were responding to tips about men who resembled a composite sketch of the rapist or who seemed to be acting strangely.

Judge: False DNA common

A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge says that he warned prosecutors and San Jose police years ago against using phony crime lab reports as a ruse during interrogations - long before the recent controversy that forced police to disavow the practice.

The warning from Judge Ray Cunningham, now the presiding judge of the county's criminal courts, is one indication uncovered this past week that the police use of the phony reports during questioning of sex crime suspects was more extensive than previously known. Cunningham said the case dated to the 1990s. In a separate 2002 case, detective Juan Serrano described the use of ruse crime lab reports as "standard procedure" at that time.

...

False DNA report

Serrano's partner, Todd Trayer, testified that he had invented Roberts' name when he created the false report for questioning Hernandez. Trayer told the court that he entered information into a "boilerplate faux DNA sheet" that was used in the sexual assaults unit, printed the form out and took it to his interview with Hernandez.

The form appears authentic, bearing the seal of the county district attorney, which operates the lab.

[OKthatsIT]

28. They've been taking DNA samples from ALL US newborns

for 35 years. Every state, every hospital ~> off to the secret Federal Database.

It's only now, it's becoming known to you.