DNA Privacy Rights

[Vic]

They don't need a warrant if it's in a public place or have probable cause. If the coffee cup is in your house, they need a warrant or probable cause. If the coffee cup is in a restaurant, they just need the owner's permission, not yours.

And that envelope glue DNA case was in Seattle, and it held up all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court -- Text.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
They don't need a warrant if it's in a public place or have probable cause. If the coffee cup is in your house, they need a warrant or probable cause. If the coffee cup is in a restaurant, they just need the owner's permission, not yours.

And that envelope glue DNA case was in Seattle, and it held up all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court -- Text.

I tend to agree with the dissenting judge here.

A clear-cut set of rules to prevent permanent storage, or analysis beyond identity for DNA obtained without a warrant, and without direct consent would go a long way to making it seem more acceptable though.

 

[Vic]

I didn't say I agreed with the ruling.

 

[Drift3r]

DNA is not the end all and be all of evidence. This is especially true if the lab it's sent too does not take the proper procedures to make sure it does not become contaminated or mislabeled. Do you people realize that there is no federal oversight over forensic labels and their procedures ? There have been quite a few cases in which certain labs have been shut down or discredited after lawyers of defendants have uncovered gross negligence in the handling of DNA samples. Also the collection methods are not always up to snuff in some cases which may lead to erroneous results. Don't be fooled by the glitz and glamor of Hollywood inspired CSI shows and their portrayal of these labs. Many CSI labs are not as professional or as well run as what you see on tv.


To this end I do not trust law enforcement agents with the task of collecting DNA evidence against my knowledge again due to all the wrong things that could happen in terms of corruption and tampering. If it's part of a ongoing investigation then yes they can do so with a court order but not just out of the blue with no sort of oversight by the courts. Frankly the speed at which our own private rights and rights privacy are being stripped away is sad and frightening.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...183203_crimelab23.html
http://www.innocenceproject.or...rime-Lab-Oversight.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/politics/05labs.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opi.../28/1196036982632.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...351c7c7a80e&ei=5087%0A

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'd say that it's just as reasonable as the collection of discarded trash or fingerprints. Now, I do agree that the database is a bit of a concern; but I'm not sure we have any way, short of a SCOTUS decision or amendment, to avoid the creation of one. The cat is pretty much out of the bag with DNA... hell, mine is on file with the DoD, so I'm screwed either way! LOL!

Lesson of the day? Don't commit a crime.

You have to be a prime suspect for the authorities to even consider fingerprints and going through you garbage without a warrant is illegal in England.

I'd say it's not reasonable unless there is a strong suspicion, strong enough to get a warrant from the courts.

Of course, you just hand over your rights, because you have your hand guns that you will use one day when you have no other rights and cannot even congregate?

Pathetic.

 

[1prophet]

Why a warrant when you can arrest them for the most trivial of charges and have a permanent record of their DNA, and best of all start out when they are children.

And as usual England shows us the way.

Police put 100,000 innocent children on DNA database

Police say those who have had their DNA taken include two schoolgirls charged with criminal damage after drawing chalk on a pavement and a child in Kent who removed a slice of cucumber from a tuna mayonnaise sandwich and threw it at another youngster.

The number of innocent people on the database, including the 105,000 children, is one million - 25 per cent of the four million who have their DNA stored.


It is the world's largest database and has raised concern that Britain is lurching towards a "surveillance society".


Criminologists have warned that, in order to make policing simpler, officers are targeting for arrest those they see as potential troublemakers. By making arrests for a minor offence such as criminal damage, they can take the DNA of a group of youngsters at the same time.


No charges need to be made, but the samples can be stored.


A Home Office spokesman said last night: "Taking a DNA sample and fingerprints from those arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station, including juveniles aged ten to 17, is now part of the normal process within a police custody suite.


"Those who are innocent have nothing to fear from providing a sample and retaining this evidence is no different to recording other forms of information such as photographs and witness statements."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
I didn't say I agreed with the ruling.

Well, I would suspect you don't.