The Courts Will Soon Decide If Police Can Sample Your DNA

[myrobbins7]

Without A warrant of course..... America the land of the free.

U.S. courts will soon decide whether Americans can have the expectation of privacy over their DNA, reports Kate Moser at the Recorder.

Michael Risher of the ACLU of Northern California is challenging a California law that requires all felony arrestees to give a DNA sample.


Legality Of DNA Collection - Business Insider

 

[Manvol]

No one will be taking my DNA unless i shoot it in their eye.

 

[volfan6782]

Without A warrant of course..... America the land of the free.

U.S. courts will soon decide whether Americans can have the expectation of privacy over their DNA, reports Kate Moser at the Recorder.

Michael Risher of the ACLU of Northern California is challenging a California law that requires all felony arrestees to give a DNA sample.


Legality Of DNA Collection - Business Insider

Not taking a stance for DNA collection but what is the difference between taking finger prints and taking DNA? Finger prints are a unique indentifier taken from arestees already, why would DNA be such a huge step, it's also a unique identifier.

 

[myrobbins7]

Not taking a stance for DNA collection but what is the difference between taking finger prints and taking DNA?

Why do they need any of that from me?

 

[myrobbins7]

No one will be taking my DNA unless i shoot it in their eye.

 

[volfan6782]

Why do they need any of that from me?

Once again not saying i want it but the key to the article is that they are taking it from "felony arrestee's"

 

[utvolpj]

Once again not saying i want it but the key to the article is that they are taking it from "felony arrestee's"

and why is that so important?

 

[volfan6782]

What's the difference in taking finger prints or DNA?

 

[volfan6782]

Sidenote: I wouldn't want to give my DNA either but if the police can already take a sample of a unique identifier from me in finger prints for a basic arrest, what's to stop them from taking another like DNA.

 

[utvolpj]

it's not just about identifying the person. DNA is actual genetic material and can tells a whole lot more

 

[bamacheats]

Once again not saying i want it but the key to the article is that they are taking it from "felony arrestee's"

Convicted felons I'm ok with. Felony arrestees is entirely different.

 

[volfan6782]

Convicted felons I'm ok with. Felony arrestees is entirely different.

Every person who is booked regardless of conviction is fingerprinted. And to PJ's point what else will DNA tell investigators other than it matches another crime or not?

 

[utvolpj]

Every person who is booked regardless of conviction is fingerprinted. And to PJ's point what else will DNA tell investigators other than it matches another crime or not?

you assume only the police that take it will have access

 

[bamacheats]

Every person who is booked regardless of conviction is fingerprinted. And to PJ's point what else will DNA tell investigators other than it matches another crime or not?

I've got a problem with that as well.

 

[volfan6782]

you assume only the police that take it will have access

Are finger print databases limited to police?

 

[utvolpj]

Are finger print databases limited to police?

the only real data you can from fingerprints is how many fingers the person has. DNA can get a bit more detailed than that

 

[volfan6782]

the only real data you can from fingerprints is how many fingers the person has. DNA can get a bit more detailed than that

So finger prints can't be matched?

 

[utvolpj]

that's not even close to the point. You know what DNA actually is and what it contains right?

here's a quote from the article linked

On the other hand, as First District Court of Appeal panel Justice J. Anthony Kline stated when rejecting the notion that DNA collection is like fingerprinting, "there is no doubt that an extraordinary amount of private personal information can be extracted from the DNA samples and specimens seized by the police without a warrant, collected and indefinitely retained by the DOJ."

 

[bamacheats]

So finger prints can't be matched?

Finger printing is a hack science. Lie detectors are more reliable but inadmissible.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What is wrong with convicted criminals having to give DNA samples?

 

[Velo Vol]

Looks like a California issue . . . for now.

 

[bamacheats]

What is wrong with convicted criminals having to give DNA samples?

Nothing

 

[Gramps]

What is wrong with convicted criminals having to give DNA samples?

I don't see anything wrong with DNA samples.

 

[utvolpj]

What is wrong with convicted criminals having to give DNA samples?

this isn't about "convicted" criminals

 

[Cartervol]

Isn't fingerprints just as effective as far as determining a single individual? Why DNA samples? Sounds expensive and wasteful. Dang i just described our government. Now this makes more sense.