DNA Collection law
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: DNA Collection law

  1. #1
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,684

    Default DNA Collection law

    When someone is arrested should police be able to take a DNA sample to check for matches to other crimes or is it an invastion of privacy?

    Maryland's DNA law, which allows police to take samples of suspects' genetic material for possible matches to other crimes, will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court next year, the justices announced Friday.

    The law, a signature crime-fighting initiative of Gov. Martin O'Malley, was ruled unconstitutional by Maryland's highest court in April. But in July, U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued an order allowing police to continue collecting DNA samples, signaling that the high court would ultimately weigh in on the issue that has pitted law enforcement interests against privacy concerns.

    On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it would hear Maryland v. King, a case that stems from a previously unsolved 2003 rape case in Salisbury. When a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after an arrest on unrelated assault charges in 2009, it was used to convict him of the earlier crime. Saying the use of King's DNA violated his rights, the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned his conviction in April and sent the case back to trial court.

    "We applaud the decision by the Supreme Court to review Maryland's case regarding DNA collection," O'Malley said in a prepared statement. "Allowing law enforcement to collect DNA samples from offenders charged with serious crimes is absolutely critical to our efforts to continue driving down crime in Maryland and bolsters our efforts to resolve open investigations and bring them to a resolution ? providing victims long-deserved closure."

    The Maryland Public Defender's office, which represented King, has argued that taking suspects' DNA before they are even convicted of crimes and using the samples to link them to previous or future crimes violates their right to privacy and constitutes an unlawful search and seizure.

    "People who are presumed to be innocent should not be subject to the warrantless seizure of intensely personal genetic information," Stephen B. Mercer, chief of the Public Defender's Forensics Division, said Friday.

    Advocates of the DNA law argue that the measure has helped police solve even cold-case crimes and put away violent criminals.

    "We are pleased by [Friday's] decision and look forward to the opportunity to defend this important crime-fighting tool before the nation's highest court," Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said in a prepared statement. "With Chief Justice Roberts' stay still in place, Maryland's DNA database remains in operation, helping law enforcement identify and bring to justice violent perpetrators in some of our state's most gruesome unsolved cases."

    The law, which went into effect in 2009, expanded the collection of DNA samples from those convicted of crimes to those who have been arrested for violent crime or burglary, even if they were not found guilty. More than half of the states currently collect DNA samples from suspects of violent crime.

    Taking DNA is akin to fingerprinting suspects in an attempt to link them to crimes, its supporters have argued.

    "There is no reasonable, principled distinction to be made between taking and using fingerprints for identification purposes and taking and using DNA identifiers for identification purposes," Gansler wrote in his petition to the Supreme Court to allow its continued collection.

    But opponents contend that taking DNA goes far beyond a fingerprint and into a person's very genetic makeup and that having this very private information stored in a federal or state database leaves open the possibility that it will be used for other purposes.
    Rest of article
    Supreme Court will hear Md. DNA law - Baltimore Sun
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,222

    Default

    I honestly don't understand the difference between the sample and fingerprints and the article didn't really clear it up for me. Maybe someone else will have so more info besides "it invades privacy" like the article stated lol.

    Right now, don't see the problem. If you aren't a troublemaker, what does it matter what samples they take?
    blather likes this.

  3. #3
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,309

    Default

    Taking fingerprints isn't an invasion of privacy nor would taking a picture. I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to my fingerprints or image in general.

    My DNA on the other hand, I do have an expectation of privacy. It requires an invasive procedure. SCOTUS heard a case on whether blood tests for drunk driving violates the 4th amendment. The haven't issued a final ruling, but the articles I read said they are leaning toward that yes, it invates privacy.

    Not only that, it was an unrelated crime. They had no reason to collect his DNA for an assualt charge.

  4. #4
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Jess in a lot of cases, like rape in particular, they may have been able to collect DNA but never caught the rapist, not so much with fingerprints.

    I agree with this:

    The Maryland Public Defender's office, which represented King, has argued that taking suspects' DNA before they are even convicted of crimes and using the samples to link them to previous or future crimes violates their right to privacy and constitutes an unlawful search and seizure.
    I don't agree with this, for the bolded reason in particular.

  5. #5
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,222

    Default

    Oh that I get. I'm not getting why this is considered more of an invasion of privacy but a fingerprint is not. Swab inside of the mouth am I right?

    Do we take fingerprints before convicted of crimes? If someone is brought into the police station on charges, are they not collected then? Why can we not take a DNA sample?

  6. #6
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    Oh that I get. I'm not getting why this is considered more of an invasion of privacy but a fingerprint is not. Swab inside of the mouth am I right?

    Do we take fingerprints before convicted of crimes? If someone is brought into the police station on charges, are they not collected then? Why can we not take a DNA sample?
    You really don't expect privacy on the inside of your mouth?

  7. #7
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,222

    Default

    I guess the privacy of my mouth is just as equal to the privacy of my fingerprint at least to me.

  8. #8
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    I guess the privacy of my mouth is just as equal to the privacy of my fingerprint at least to me.
    I am pretty selective with those whom I allow access to the inside of my mouth.
    mommydearest likes this.

  9. #9
    Posting Addict SID081108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,237

    Default

    I don't get it either. I can hardly see calling a swab of the inside of my cheek an "invasive procedure". And as far as the quote that Melissa posted, the same can be said of fingerprints, can't it? I mean, in some crime scenes fingerprints are collected...in some crime scenes DNA is collected...in some crime scenes they are lucky enough to get both. If someone is brought in on charges, and they are going to take their fingerprints, and keep them in a database which they can use to search against other crimes, why not do the same with the DNA? I fail to see the difference.
    CARRIE and DH 7/14/07
    SOPHIA 8/11/08
    LAYLA 3/24/11


  10. #10
    Posting Addict mom2robbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    5,822

    Default

    My thought is the day is coming when they will take DNA from every baby at birth and keep it on file. For some reasons that could be good (ie kidnapping) but it could also be bad if in the future you commit a crime... I don't know. As a former victim I say everyone arrested should have DNA taken but I know I am very biased.
    Margaret (44)
    Sean (38 )
    Robbie (8 )
    Bailey (April 2, 2011)


    "The soul always knows what to do to heal itself. The challenge is to silence the mind." Caroline Myss

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions