ACLU Sues Over California DNA Testing of Arrestees

[her209]

link

By Gina Keating

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Civil libertarians sued on Tuesday to stop implementation of a California law that mandates DNA testing for suspected felons even if they are never convicted.

The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit called the statute, which was approved by voters in November and mandates universal testing by 2009, "the most draconian program for the collection, retention and sharing of DNA data in existence in the United States."

The suit asks a San Francisco federal judge to bar police from taking DNA samples from anyone arrested but not convicted, or from those who have completed probation and parole.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer endorsed the measure, known on the ballot as Proposition 69, as one of the most important crime-fighting laws in state history.

"DNA databank laws have been challenged repeatedly over the past two decades using the same theory that the ACLU has articulated in this lawsuit and (the lawsuits) failed," said attorney general's spokesman, Nathan Barankin.

The ACLU suit said the law violates the due process and privacy rights of innocent arrestees whose DNA records could be shared with other law enforcement agencies and private laboratories.

The law could mandate the collection and retention of DNA from people arrested as a result of domestic violence, identity theft or police misconduct, or those jailed in connection with political protests but not charged, ACLU officials said.

The ACLU said about one-third of those arrested for felony offenses in California are never convicted of any crime.

Opponents, including the National Black Police Association and the state Democratic Party, also objected to the cost of processing new samples, estimated at $100 million each year.

Before California voters approved Proposition 69, state law required only felons convicted of serious or violent felonies to submit DNA samples to the statewide database.

With the approval of Proposition 69, California became one of three U.S. states to collect DNA samples at arrest and one of 34 that collect DNA samples from all convicted felons.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

 

[miketheidiot]

:thumbsup:

Unreasonable search and siezure maybe?

 

[1EZduzit]

So what's the probable cause for this search?? I guess we had better just DNA profile the whole country and save law enforcement tax dollars.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So what's the probable cause for this search?? I guess we had better just DNA profile the whole country and save law enforcement tax dollars.

Yet they can't even find the money to do DNA test on people serving life setences but can waste 100 million dollars a year testing inncoent people.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So what's the probable cause for this search?? I guess we had better just DNA profile the whole country and save law enforcement tax dollars.

Yet they can't even find the money to do DNA test on people serving life setences but can waste 100 million dollars a year testing inncoent people.

Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Yes we are

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

How did you get from my observation to your statement?

I'm missing the logical progression.

Can you explain it to me?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So what's the probable cause for this search?? I guess we had better just DNA profile the whole country and save law enforcement tax dollars.

Yet they can't even find the money to do DNA test on people serving life setences but can waste 100 million dollars a year testing inncoent people.

Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

In the eyes of our legal system, YES you are. The ACLU is right to challenge this .... no one is going to mind if convicted felons are forced to provide a DNA sample, but if you're deemed innocent of said charges, requiring a DNA sample is rather orwellian. The CA prop had good intentions, they just screwed up on the details.

 

[JackStorm]

Just one question, Riprorin: Would you prefer if the legal system said we were innocent untill provent guilty or would you prefer if it said we are guilty untill proven innocent?

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So what's the probable cause for this search?? I guess we had better just DNA profile the whole country and save law enforcement tax dollars.

Yet they can't even find the money to do DNA test on people serving life setences but can waste 100 million dollars a year testing inncoent people.

Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

In the eyes of our legal system, YES you are. The ACLU is right to challenge this .... no one is going to mind if convicted felons are forced to provide a DNA sample, but if you're deemed innocent of said charges, requiring a DNA sample is rather orwellian. The CA prop had good intentions, they just screwed up on the details.

Exactly. What exactly was the point of your observation Rip as it applies to the OP...or was there none?

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

How did you get from my observation to your statement?

I'm missing the logical progression.

Can you explain it to me?

No, you're the one without any logic. Let's say you were to be arrested for a crime mistakenly. I mean we can take your DNA, hold you without due process, etc. etc. because you MAY be guilty, right? :roll:

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: JackStorm
Just one question, Riprorin: Would you prefer if the legal system said we were innocent untill provent guilty or would you prefer if it said we are guilty untill proven innocent?

innocent until proved guilty.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: JackStorm
Just one question, Riprorin: Would you prefer if the legal system said we were innocent untill provent guilty or would you prefer if it said we are guilty untill proven innocent?

innocent until proved guilty.

K, thanks for answering. Just had to know, because I was having doubts about which way you might be leaning.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

How did you get from my observation to your statement?

I'm missing the logical progression.

Can you explain it to me?

I think it's pretty obvious.

You don't collect DNA samples for permanent records from innocent people, but you do for guilty people. You don't send 'aquitted' innocent people to prison, but you do send criminals to prison. Why would you subject aquitted people, innocent in the eyes of the law, to a DNA test; doing so explicitly treats them as 'partly guilty' when the law gives no justification for doing so.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

How did you get from my observation to your statement?

I'm missing the logical progression.

Can you explain it to me?

I think it's pretty obvious.

You don't collect DNA samples for permanent records from innocent people, but you do for guilty people. You don't send 'aquitted' innocent people to prison, but you do send criminals to prison. Why would you subject aquitted people, innocent in the eyes of the law, to a DNA test; doing so explicitly treats them as 'partly guilty' when the law gives no justification for doing so.

You're not answering my question.

What's the justification for the comment about dispensing of trials and shooting all arrestees?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

How did you get from my observation to your statement?

I'm missing the logical progression.

Can you explain it to me?

I think it's pretty obvious.

You don't collect DNA samples for permanent records from innocent people, but you do for guilty people. You don't send 'aquitted' innocent people to prison, but you do send criminals to prison. Why would you subject aquitted people, innocent in the eyes of the law, to a DNA test; doing so explicitly treats them as 'partly guilty' when the law gives no justification for doing so.

You're not answering my question.

What's the justification for the comment about dispensing of trials and shooting all arrestees?

Simple i wanted to know how far you would go with your logic of assuming that anyone found not guilty or had charges dropped was guilty.

 

[KidViciou$]

this is unconstitutional, and unless we are that far gone will be shot down

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You're not answering my question.

What's the justification for the comment about dispensing of trials and shooting all arrestees?

Actually I did answer your question. Either way you're subjecting someone who is onnocent according to the law, to treatment indicative of guilt.

Unless it's acceptabe to compel all citizens to provide DNA samples for permanent records, it's not acceptable to keep such records for people arrested but not convicted of a crime.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

How did you get from my observation to your statement?

I'm missing the logical progression.

Can you explain it to me?

I think it's pretty obvious.

You don't collect DNA samples for permanent records from innocent people, but you do for guilty people. You don't send 'aquitted' innocent people to prison, but you do send criminals to prison. Why would you subject aquitted people, innocent in the eyes of the law, to a DNA test; doing so explicitly treats them as 'partly guilty' when the law gives no justification for doing so.

You're not answering my question.

What's the justification for the comment about dispensing of trials and shooting all arrestees?

Simple i wanted to know how far you would go with your logic of assuming that anyone found not guilty or had charges dropped was guilty.

Where did you get that I'm assuming that anyone found not guilty or had charges dropped was guilty?

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.

Everyone is a sinner right Rip?

Do you think that OJ is an innocent man?

Ever hear of plea-bargaining, witness intimidation, or insuffiecient evidence? I'm sure that there are a lot of arrestees who are guilty of a felony but aren't convicted for it.

Why bother with a trial we should just shoot anyone arrested.

How did you get from my observation to your statement?

I'm missing the logical progression.

Can you explain it to me?

I think it's pretty obvious.

You don't collect DNA samples for permanent records from innocent people, but you do for guilty people. You don't send 'aquitted' innocent people to prison, but you do send criminals to prison. Why would you subject aquitted people, innocent in the eyes of the law, to a DNA test; doing so explicitly treats them as 'partly guilty' when the law gives no justification for doing so.

You're not answering my question.

What's the justification for the comment about dispensing of trials and shooting all arrestees?

Simple i wanted to know how far you would go with your logic of assuming that anyone found not guilty or had charges dropped was guilty.

Where did you get that I'm assuming that anyone found not guilty or had charges dropped was guilty?

Just because your not convicted of a felony, your not necessarily an innocent person.