The U.S. Department of Injustice has published a proposed rule that would allow any Federal law enforcement agency to collect DNA from anyone arrested.
The Feds arrest approximately 140,000 people per year.
This would presumably include arrests for misdeamenors, or non-violent offenses.
Here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection (//%22http://%22)
Can anyone spell Big Brother?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The U.S. Department of Injustice has published a proposed rule that would allow any Federal law enforcement agency to collect DNA from anyone arrested.
The Feds arrest approximately 140,000 people per year.
This would presumably include arrests for misdeamenors, or non-violent offenses.
Here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dna_collection (//%22http://%22)
Can anyone spell Big Brother?
Nope, no different than law enforcement obtaining fingerprints. Did you read the article?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
no different than law enforcement obtaining fingerprints.
DNA profiling is as different from fingerprinting as night is from day. A whole different set of legal and ethical questions apply to cataloging peoples genetic makeup.
If you want to get really creeped out about this, add the 1997 film GATTACA to your Netflix que.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr1IB9RVE_U
No different then fingerprinting, plus, the Feds have so few misdemeanor crimes on the books, it hardly matters.
Yea for the Feds!
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
no different than law enforcement obtaining fingerprints.
DNA profiling is as different from fingerprinting as night is from day. A whole different set of legal and ethical questions apply to cataloging peoples genetic makeup.
If you want to get really creeped out about this, add the 1997 film GATTACA to your Netflix que.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr1IB9RVE_U
Gattaca was an awesome movie. However, where in the article did it discuss the feds were going to perform DNA profiling or catalogue genetic makeup of persons? I thought the article was merely pointing out that the feds were publishing rules pursuant to federal statute.
No genetic documentation here. Not even the military pulls that off.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
No different then fingerprinting, plus, the Feds have so few misdemeanor crimes on the books, it hardly matters.
Yea for the Feds!
Law enforcement loves to enforce laws based on possession of contraband.
In fact, some police have even planted contraband in the form of illegal drugs in order to frame someone they wanted to arrest, or to cover up their unsubstantiated warrant.
Likewise, there are documented incidents of prison authorities planting contraband in prisoners cells, such as liquor, so that they could extend their sentence by revoking "good" time earned.
While DNA has cleared approximately 200 men falsely imprisoned on rape or murder charges, DNA evidence is a two edged sword.
With something as small as a strand of hair from your pocket comb,a discarded piece of chewing gum, or a coffee cup you've imbibed, can provide the evidence to frame you for a crime you did not commit.
The police can say they found your DNA evidence at the crime scene.
Prove you weren't there.
And, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
I am pretty sure the gubmint wants my DNA so they can clone me. Something about a master race...
RM... now all you have to do is get arrested.
So when do you get off probation, Bear?
[:D]
Methinks he protesteth too much.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
No different then fingerprinting, plus, the Feds have so few misdemeanor crimes on the books, it hardly matters.
Yea for the Feds!
Law enforcement loves to enforce laws based on possession of contraband.
In fact, some police have even planted contraband in the form of illegal drugs in order to frame someone they wanted to arrest, or to cover up their unsubstantiated warrant.
Likewise, there are documented incidents of prison authorities planting contraband in prisoners cells, such as liquor, so that they could extend their sentence by revoking "good" time earned.
While DNA has cleared approximately 200 men falsely imprisoned on rape or murder charges, DNA evidence is a two edged sword.
With something as small as a strand of hair from your pocket comb,a discarded piece of chewing gum, or a coffee cup you've imbibed, can provide the evidence to frame you for a crime you did not commit.
The police can say they found your DNA evidence at the crime scene.
Prove you weren't there.
And, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
You actually believe....... Oh, never mind. Not worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
No different then fingerprinting, plus, the Feds have so few misdemeanor crimes on the books, it hardly matters.
Yea for the Feds!
Law enforcement loves to enforce laws based on possession of contraband.
In fact, some police have even planted contraband in the form of illegal drugs in order to frame someone they wanted to arrest, or to cover up their unsubstantiated warrant.
Likewise, there are documented incidents of prison authorities planting contraband in prisoners cells, such as liquor, so that they could extend their sentence by revoking "good" time earned.
While DNA has cleared approximately 200 men falsely imprisoned on rape or murder charges, DNA evidence is a two edged sword.
With something as small as a strand of hair from your pocket comb,a discarded piece of chewing gum, or a coffee cup you've imbibed, can provide the evidence to frame you for a crime you did not commit.
The police can say they found your DNA evidence at the crime scene.
Prove you weren't there.
And, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
You actually believe....... Oh, never mind. Not worth it.
An enlightening book that tells a small part of the story of the effects on innocent people of bad policing and bad prosecutions, including intentional framing of suspects in order to get a conviction, is documented in the book:
Actual Innocence by Barry Schreck et al
Another recent best seller about Oklahoma INJUSTICE, by the notable author John Grisham is
The Innocent Man.
Then, move on to Mark Furman's
Death & Justice: An Expose on Oklahoma's Death Row.I doubt if Mr. Grisham, Mr. Schreck, or Mr. Furman will ever be invited to Oklahoma by the ruling power establishment.
Schreck won a multi-million dollar settlement against the city of Ada, Pontotoc County, and the State of Oklahoma on behalf of his clients after their 12 year wrongful imprisonment.
Mistakes which cost the TAXPAYERS money.
And, County D.A.'s Macy and Peterson got to retire. Without ANY consequences for their actions.
Based on the above observation FB... why would you not want to see an expansion of a program that can help alleviate the risk of such unwarranted incarcerations.... and the attendant risk to us taxpayers?
Our legal sytem is built around the concept of it being better to free a guilty man than imprison an innocent man... is it successful at all times? Of course not. But there are many more guilty persons walking the streets today then innocent men behind bars.
^+1
Using F.B.'s logic, police officers in the 19th century wouldn't have been allowed to use fingerprints as evidence in crime scenes because there *might* be a slim chance of planting evidence. You don't suppress a really innovative method that can do a lot of good just because you have a handful of ne'er-do-wells that might abuse it.
That's just dumb reasoning (I'm starting to see a pattern with F.B.).
Listen ... DNA is just another tool in the toolbox that may help police officers solve crimes. If you got a bad cop who wants to plant evidence, he's going to do with DNA, fingerprints, anything he can get his hands on.
The irony is ... that same DNA can exonerate suspects who may have been improperly linked to a crime. It's certainly happened before, especially to nearly a dozen death-row inmates in Illinois.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
No different then fingerprinting, plus, the Feds have so few misdemeanor crimes on the books, it hardly matters.
Yea for the Feds!
Law enforcement loves to enforce laws based on possession of contraband.
In fact, some police have even planted contraband in the form of illegal drugs in order to frame someone they wanted to arrest, or to cover up their unsubstantiated warrant.
Likewise, there are documented incidents of prison authorities planting contraband in prisoners cells, such as liquor, so that they could extend their sentence by revoking "good" time earned.
While DNA has cleared approximately 200 men falsely imprisoned on rape or murder charges, DNA evidence is a two edged sword.
With something as small as a strand of hair from your pocket comb,a discarded piece of chewing gum, or a coffee cup you've imbibed, can provide the evidence to frame you for a crime you did not commit.
The police can say they found your DNA evidence at the crime scene.
Prove you weren't there.
And, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
You actually believe....... Oh, never mind. Not worth it.
An enlightening book that tells a small part of the story of the effects on innocent people of bad policing and bad prosecutions, including intentional framing of suspects in order to get a conviction, is documented in the book:
Actual Innocence by Barry Schreck et al
Another recent best seller about Oklahoma INJUSTICE, by the notable author John Grisham is The Innocent Man.
Then, move on to Mark Furman's Death & Justice: An Expose on Oklahoma's Death Row.
I doubt if Mr. Grisham, Mr. Schreck, or Mr. Furman will ever be invited to Oklahoma by the ruling power establishment.
Schreck won a multi-million dollar settlement against the city of Ada, Pontotoc County, and the State of Oklahoma on behalf of his clients after their 12 year wrongful imprisonment.
Mistakes which cost the TAXPAYERS money.
And, County D.A.'s Macy and Peterson got to retire. Without ANY consequences for their actions.
'Mistake', in your own words, is a far cry from planting and framing.
Ooops! I got involved again.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
^+1
Using F.B.'s logic, police officers in the 19th century wouldn't have been allowed to use fingerprints as evidence in crime scenes because there *might* be a slim chance of planting evidence. You don't suppress a really innovative method that can do a lot of good just because you have a handful of ne'er-do-wells that might abuse it.
That's just dumb reasoning (I'm starting to see a pattern with F.B.).
Listen ... DNA is just another tool in the toolbox that may help police officers solve crimes. If you got a bad cop who wants to plant evidence, he's going to do with DNA, fingerprints, anything he can get his hands on.
The irony is ... that same DNA can exonerate suspects who may have been improperly linked to a crime. It's certainly happened before, especially to nearly a dozen death-row inmates in Illinois.
Actually, in Scheck's book, "Actual Innocence", he documents the case of a policeman who learned how to transfer fingerprints of a suspect from one surface over to an incriminating surface, in this case a soft drink can left at the scene of a crime.
How handy!
After 12 years in prison, for the Pontotoc County rape/murder tried by DA Peterson, Fritz and Williamson were in fact exonerated by DNA testing, after having been framed with fallacious "hair sample" comparisons which put them in McAlester by DA Peterson.
It wasn't even their hair, but the state crime lab chemist helpfully testified to a match.
After the exoneration, the State then finally tested the DNA of one of the lead witnesses against the two, and VOILA, they got a match. He was already in prison for another offense.
While the state did take TWELVE years of these men's lives, it's okay that mistakes happen?
Sure, we'll just say "Sorry" to them, and everything will be ALL better.
Read Mr. Fritz's "Journey to Justice" to see if he's bitter for losing twelve years of his life.
They should just do it at birth and get it over with.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
They should just do it at birth and get it over with.....
Actually, they already are.
Under laws passed by the state government, the government is collecting all newborn's DNA under the pretext of testing for a myriad of inherited (and incurable) diseases.
They take a DNA blood speciman within minutes after the baby is born.
But, they've only been collecting all newborn DNA for the past few years. There are therefore wide gaps in a DNA database covering the entire population.
So, eventually, they will in fact have everyone's DNA, but that will take several generations.
Therefore, those of us in the GAP who weren't DNA tested are missing from CODIS. But, under this new rule, they will get 140,000 annually of presumably adult DNA samples to add to the several million adult specimins already housed in CODIS.
By the way, when you get a blood test at a Doctor's lab, do you in fact KNOW that DNA typing is not also being performed, and your DNA handed over to the government, and also provided to the Insurance industry-controlled Medical Information Bureau (MIB), so they can risk-rate you INDIVIDUALLY for any Life insurance that you might buy.....???
Really, you don't ASK the lab what they are really doing with your blood, do you...........???
P.S. Anyone know CODIS mean in Latin?
[:P]
It doesn't take having DNA on file for someone to frame you, if you want to go into that line argument. It doesn't take a whole lot to get a warrant for a DNA sample, and there are other ways to obtain it legally. The purpose of keeping DNA on file is so that when DNA is found on a scene, they can simply run it to find out who it belongs too. Just imagine how many rapists would be behind bars if they had started this before.
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
It doesn't take having DNA on file for someone to frame you, if you want to go into that line argument. It doesn't take a whole lot to get a warrant for a DNA sample, and there are other ways to obtain it legally. The purpose of keeping DNA on file is so that when DNA is found on a scene, they can simply run it to find out who it belongs too. Just imagine how many rapists would be behind bars if they had started this before.
Just imagine this:
You toss your soft drink cup into a trash receptacle.
It's retrieved and planted at the scene of a rape/murder by the murderer/rapist, or by parties unknown.
It's got YOUR DNA on it.
No other evidence is found at the crime scene.
Your DNA is in the CODIS database, and matches the DNA found on the soft drink cup.
Who will the #1 suspect be?
Now, prove you didn't commit the crime....
I think they call it having an "alibi"....
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
It doesn't take having DNA on file for someone to frame you, if you want to go into that line argument. It doesn't take a whole lot to get a warrant for a DNA sample, and there are other ways to obtain it legally. The purpose of keeping DNA on file is so that when DNA is found on a scene, they can simply run it to find out who it belongs too. Just imagine how many rapists would be behind bars if they had started this before.
Just imagine this:
You toss your soft drink cup into a trash receptacle.
It's retrieved and planted at the scene of a rape/murder by the murderer/rapist, or by parties unknown.
It's got YOUR DNA on it.
No other evidence is found at the crime scene.
Your DNA is in the CODIS database, and matches the DNA found on the soft drink cup.
Who will the #1 suspect be?
Now, prove you didn't commit the crime....
First off they would probably have to have some reason to suspect you. The person who was raped might have something to do with that. Secondly, I am sure your DNA wouldnt be the only DNA found at the scene. Just like with fingerprints there are often dozens if not hundreds of different people who have left them at a crime scene, especially a public one as you have described. Now if they found your DNA on the person who was raped and you were a suspect for other reasons, then ya might have cause for worry. But what are the chances of someone you know or were around enough to "leave DNA on" yet the rapist didnt, being raped and then them pointing you out as the rapist and or you being suspect for some other reason? Its just starts bringing up an absurd number of unlikely scenarios.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by custosnox
It doesn't take having DNA on file for someone to frame you, if you want to go into that line argument. It doesn't take a whole lot to get a warrant for a DNA sample, and there are other ways to obtain it legally. The purpose of keeping DNA on file is so that when DNA is found on a scene, they can simply run it to find out who it belongs too. Just imagine how many rapists would be behind bars if they had started this before.
Just imagine this:
You toss your soft drink cup into a trash receptacle.
It's retrieved and planted at the scene of a rape/murder by the murderer/rapist, or by parties unknown.
It's got YOUR DNA on it.
No other evidence is found at the crime scene.
Your DNA is in the CODIS database, and matches the DNA found on the soft drink cup.
Who will the #1 suspect be?
Now, prove you didn't commit the crime....
First, I don't have to prove I didn't, they have to prove I did. That scenario would be a poor way of trying to frame someone. Second, They wouldn't need my DNA on a mainframe to plant DNA, they just plant it in a manner such as you described, or more likely a more intelligent way. Place it in a situation that would put me as a suspect regardless, and at this time they have probable cause to collect my DNA. And since I don't have a tendency to get arrested anyhow, they would still have to get a warrant to get it.
In a crime spree almost as old as this thread...
First came the shock that the Golden State Killer wore a gun and a badge, then came the shock from how they finally found him.
By Associated Press
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Investigators hunting down the so-called Golden State Killer used information from genetic websites last year that led to the wrong man, court records obtained Friday by The Associated Press showed.
An Oregon police officer working at the request of California investigators persuaded a judge in March 2017 to order a 73-year-old man in a nursing home to provide a DNA sample.
The Oregon City man is in declining health and was unable to answer questions Friday about the case.
His daughter said authorities never notified her before swabbing her father for DNA in his bed a rehabilitation center, but once they told her afterward she understood and worked with them to eliminate people who conceivably could be the killer.
The case of mistaken identity was discovered as authorities hailed a novel use of DNA technology that led this week to the arrest of former police officer Joseph DeAngelo at his house outside Sacramento on murder charges. Critics of the investigative approach, however, warned it could jeopardize privacy rights.
DeAngelo's suspected of being the sadistic attacker who killed 13 people and raped nearly 50 women during the 1970s and '80s.
In a case of guilty until proven innocent, a state program collects DNA evidence from people convicted of no crime
The DNA is being collected from people who have not been convicted of anything. They are innocent in the eyes of the law, but Oklahoma Watch reports that the program's policy is to keep the DNA in a national database until arrestees are exonerated in court and then removed it only if arrestees contact the OSBI and request expungement.
What does an innocent person have to fear from a DNA sample, you may ask?
Identity theft comes to mind. DNA is identity at the most fundamental level. If the nation's spy agencies can't keep their computers secure from hackers do you think the OSBI can do it?
By the way, while a federal grant is paying for the program's start-up costs, the state doesn't have any money budgeted to sustain it. Any future state funding would mean less money for schools, roads or dealing with the overwhelming number of prisoners the state already has.
Here's a better idea: Instead of looking for DNA crime evidence where we think it might be, why not look for it where we know it is. At last count, Oklahoma police agencies had DNA samples taken from some 7,000 rape cases that had never been tested.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/tulsa-world-editorial-in-a-case-of-guilty-until-proven/article_f460d1f2-a930-5ab9-8314-db69dbaeefdc.html
Quote from: patric on December 16, 2018, 11:19:29 AM
In a case of guilty until proven innocent, a state program collects DNA evidence from people convicted of no crime
The DNA is being collected from people who have not been convicted of anything. They are innocent in the eyes of the law, but Oklahoma Watch reports that the program's policy is to keep the DNA in a national database until arrestees are exonerated in court and then removed it only if arrestees contact the OSBI and request expungement.
What does an innocent person have to fear from a DNA sample, you may ask?
Identity theft comes to mind. DNA is identity at the most fundamental level. If the nation's spy agencies can't keep their computers secure from hackers do you think the OSBI can do it?
By the way, while a federal grant is paying for the program's start-up costs, the state doesn't have any money budgeted to sustain it. Any future state funding would mean less money for schools, roads or dealing with the overwhelming number of prisoners the state already has.
Here's a better idea: Instead of looking for DNA crime evidence where we think it might be, why not look for it where we know it is. At last count, Oklahoma police agencies had DNA samples taken from some 7,000 rape cases that had never been tested.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/tulsa-world-editorial-in-a-case-of-guilty-until-proven/article_f460d1f2-a930-5ab9-8314-db69dbaeefdc.html
Just re-read the thread from the start. I come down on the side of this being, from a privacy concern, no different than the taking of a fingerprints. More exact, yes, but conceptually the same. I can see an argument at a very fundamental level regarding any keeping of identification data, but unless we are going to re-think fingerprints, etc, then this is a moot argument.
Quote from: rebound on December 16, 2018, 02:22:18 PM
Just re-read the thread from the start. I come down on the side of this being, from a privacy concern, no different than the taking of a fingerprints. More exact, yes, but conceptually the same. I can see an argument at a very fundamental level regarding any keeping of identification data, but unless we are going to re-think fingerprints, etc, then this is a moot argument.
Its an invalid comparison. Its very hard (but not impossible) to place another persons fingerprints at a crime scene, but incredibly easy to divert portions of a legal blood draw to a crime scene, only to "discover" it at a later date.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/05/04/Lab-exec-OJ-blood-may-be-missing/1245799560000/
https://www.newsweek.com/steven-avery-appeal-blood-evidence-innocent-guilty-kathleen-zellner-making-762639
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-juan-rivera-shoes-met-20141210-story.html
Also, taking someones photograph or fingerprint is not actually taking anything, but merely rendering a facsimile. Your blood, however, is your property and entitled to the same legal protection as any other property.
Quote from: patric on December 16, 2018, 04:51:40 PM
Its an invalid comparison. Its very hard (but not impossible) to place another persons fingerprints at a crime scene, but incredibly easy to divert portions of a legal blood draw to a crime scene, only to "discover" it at a later date.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/05/04/Lab-exec-OJ-blood-may-be-missing/1245799560000/
https://www.newsweek.com/steven-avery-appeal-blood-evidence-innocent-guilty-kathleen-zellner-making-762639
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-juan-rivera-shoes-met-20141210-story.html
Also, taking someones photograph or fingerprint is not actually taking anything, but merely rendering a facsimile. Your blood, however, is your property and entitled to the same legal protection as any other property.
I had not considered the second argument. For the first argument to be valid, it would require unethical activity on the part of the authority. Something obviously to be concerned about, but at-best is cautionary. But I like the second argument on philosophical/legal grounds.
I don't think, though, that they actually draw blood anymore for DNA Samples? Isn't that done with a mouth swab? This goes back to the ability (or lack thereof) to plant evidence, but does not override the "property" argument. I'd like to hear/read a legal argument related to probable cause and treating DNA as personal property.
TPD uses buccal swabs of the inside of cheeks to collect DNA samples.
Quote from: Tulsa Zephyr on December 17, 2018, 04:28:12 PM
TPD uses buccal swabs of the inside of cheeks to collect DNA samples.
(http://www.cia.edu/files/cinematheques/films/detail/drstrangelove.jpg)
I swear I didnt think we would end up here.
It would make sense that one bodily fluid has the same civil rights as another. Not even interested in searching case law for that one.
As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.
"It's a lot harder to resist the temptation just to run some people's DNA, just to see if there's anything useful that you get out of it," said Erin Murphy, a law professor at New York University and author of "Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA." That approach challenges the "fundamental way we've structured liberty in our constitutional order."
Moreover, there is little agreement on which types of genetic material should be run through the device. Valuable genetic evidence is likely to be rendered useless if handled by nonexperts, critics say, and police officers risk being misled by the results of Rapid DNA analysis.
"There are not the same standards and rules and safeguards that are in place for the national database," said Michael Coble, the associate director of the University of North Texas Center for Human Identification. "Who is going to change that? I don't know."
If the Rapid DNA system has flaws, now is the moment to address them, many experts argue. Peter Stout, president of the Houston Forensic Science Center, was left with concerns after completing a Rapid DNA pilot program with the Houston Police Department last February.
"I barely need a pulse to use this instrument," he said. To illustrate the point, he selected a sample from a 52-year-old who had been pulled over the previous day for running a red light.
To collect DNA, police in Pennsylvania must obtain consent from people under arrest. Ninety percent of those asked say yes, said Fred Harran, director of public safety for the Bensalem police. Asked why so many people would consent to give DNA, he said: "I have no idea. But criminals do stupid things."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/science/dna-crime-gene-technology.html