Feds to Collect DNA from everyone arrested

[Friendly Bear]

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.

[Breadburner]

They should just do it at birth and get it over with.....

[Friendly Bear]

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?

[]

[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.

[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....

[bokworker]

I think they call it having an "alibi"....

[TheArtist]

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.

[custosnox]

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.

[patric]

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.

[patric]

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

[rebound]

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.

[patric]

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.

[rebound]

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. 

[Tulsa Zephyr]

TPD uses buccal swabs of the inside of cheeks to collect DNA samples.

[patric]

TPD uses buccal swabs of the inside of cheeks to collect DNA samples.

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.