Give us your DNA

[hg321]

Text




ACLU Raps 'DNA Dragnet' in Cape Cod Murder Case

1 hour, 58 minutes ago U.S. National - Reuters


By Greg Frost

BOSTON (Reuters) - Civil rights advocates Monday urged U.S. law enforcement officials trying to solve a 3-year-old murder case to stop asking for DNA samples from male residents of a Cape Cod community.



Police in Truro, Massachusetts, are seeking genetic thumbprints from nearly 800 men who live in the quiet seaside hamlet hopes of solving the murder of Christa Worthington, a fashion writer.


Worthington's body was discovered Jan. 6, 2002, at her Truro home with her 2-year-old toddler, Ava, at her side. A $25,000 reward has so far failed to yield her killer.


In a bid to jump-start the investigation, police have begun asking Truro's male residents to voluntarily produce DNA samples -- collected by swabbing inside the mouth -- to help find a match for the semen that was found on Worthington's body.


The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse. Authorities also say they may expand the drive to neighboring communities, the Times said.


"This is a particularly insidious form of coercion because it attaches a penalty to the assertion of one's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches," Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, said in a statement.


"There are many legitimate privacy reasons why an innocent person may not agree to a DNA test."


In a letter to local prosecutors and police, Rose's group urged a halt to the "DNA dragnet," calling it a "serious intrusion" on personal privacy.


The letter raised questions about the possibility that samples may be entered into a state or federal DNA database without donors' knowledge or consent and questioned whether the effort would be worth the cost, which it estimated at $80,000.


Moreover, the letter cited a University of Nebraska study released last year that concluded that DNA sweeps of possible criminal suspects are "extremely unproductive."


Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe dismissed the ACLU's concerns.


"I don't tell the ACLU what to do and I don't expect them to tell us what's appropriate in a homicide investigation," he said. He declined to comment further on the investigation.

 

[PowerMacG5]

WTF

 

[conjur]

I'd love to see all nearly 800 of them refuse and see just how the cops are going to closely watch each and every one of them.

 

[Gibsons]

There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

 

[hg321]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'd love to see all nearly 800 of them refuse and see just how the cops are going to closely watch each and every one of them.

" Authorities also say they may expand the drive to neighboring communities,"


That should be interesting

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

 

[notfred]

The idiot that came up with that idea should be fired. Not only is it completely unreasonable, but you know that the one person that actually matches wouldn't do it, and probably doesn't even live there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd have a lawyer and sue their ass so fast it wouldn't be funny.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

Doesn't matter anymore. In fact, if Ashcroft and Bush had their way, it *would* be specifically illegal to do so. But, doesn't matter. They can grab you and arrest you and hold for you months or years without access to an attorney as it is now.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

You can't swab every person on the planet, and you are not (hopefully) going to get authorization to swab everyone who doesn't want to give up their DNA.
All it will do is waste money and time because the person who did it is not going to let himself be caught like that, but it will make it seem like the investigators are doing something.
I guess now everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

yes, they do have the right to ID you. You can be arrested if you refuse.

Link

 

[Phoenix86]

I wonder how long they will keep the DNA, and if it will be used for any other cases.

It's ok to ask, just like a cop can say "may I search you?"

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

Doesn't matter anymore. In fact, if Ashcroft and Bush had their way, it *would* be specifically illegal to do so. But, doesn't matter. They can grab you and arrest you and hold for you months or years without access to an attorney as it is now.

i didn't realize Bush and Ashcroft sat on the supreme court. :roll: do you take the time to know ANY facts before you open your mouth and spew rhetoric?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

yes, they do have the right to ID you. You can be arrested if you refuse.

Link

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

There is no reasonable indication that these men have commited, are committing, or are about to commit a crime.
. . . . .

?3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.?

No suspicious circumstances. These are every day men being asked to give DNA.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

yes, they do have the right to ID you. You can be arrested if you refuse.

Link

There is a significant difference between that & a random request in public.

Zysoclaplem beat me to the details, but this doesn't even REMOTELY apply.

Viper GTS

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Hammer

yes, they do have the right to ID you. You can be arrested if you refuse.

Link

?1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

. . . . .

?3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.?

hammer, the document you linked shows that you must indentify yourself to an officer who requests it when they have reason to believe there is suspicious/criminal activity involved.
No where does that say that an officer may arrest you on the grounds of failing to provide a mouth swab at a random DNA check. That is far from suspicious circumstances or any REASONABLE indication of criminal activity.


Edit: guess I should refresh after reading linked docs.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

yes, they do have the right to ID you. You can be arrested if you refuse.

Link

There is a significant difference between that & a random request in public.

Zysoclaplem beat me to the details, but this doesn't even REMOTELY apply.

Viper GTS

in that case, the cops were looking for someone that had been involved in a fight and happened to see this guy parked on the side of the road. yes, he was drunk, but other than that there was no reason to believe he had been in a fight. after 11 requests for id, he was arrested for interfering with a police officer doing his duty. an argument could be make that someone who refuses to show ID can be arrested for likewise interfering with an investigation.

?willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office?

is very broad

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Hammer

yes, they do have the right to ID you. You can be arrested if you refuse.

Link

?1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

. . . . .

?3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.?

hammer, the document you linked shows that you must indentify yourself to an officer who requests it when they have reason to believe there is suspicious/criminal activity involved.
No where does that say that an officer may arrest you on the grounds of failing to provide a mouth swab at a random DNA check. That is far from suspicious circumstances or any REASONABLE indication of criminal activity.


Edit: guess I should refresh after reading linked docs.

i didn't mean arresting you for refusing the swab. i was answering vipergts's comment about refusing to show id.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Hammer
i didn't mean arresting you for refusing the swab. i was answering vipergts's comment about refusing to show id.

I'm 99% sure it's been repeatedly found that that alone is not sufficient cause.

Viper GTS

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Hammer
i didn't mean arresting you for refusing the swab. i was answering vipergts's comment about refusing to show id.

I'm 99% sure it's been repeatedly found that that alone is not sufficient cause.

Viper GTS

i'm sure we'll find out. someone will almost certainly sue over this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

Doesn't matter anymore. In fact, if Ashcroft and Bush had their way, it *would* be specifically illegal to do so. But, doesn't matter. They can grab you and arrest you and hold for you months or years without access to an attorney as it is now.

i didn't realize Bush and Ashcroft sat on the supreme court. :roll: do you take the time to know ANY facts before you open your mouth and spew rhetoric?

I don't recall the USSC being asked about Jose Padilla before he was arrested without charge or legal counsel. I guess it didn't happen since Bush nor Ashcroft is on the SC.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

Doesn't matter anymore. In fact, if Ashcroft and Bush had their way, it *would* be specifically illegal to do so. But, doesn't matter. They can grab you and arrest you and hold for you months or years without access to an attorney as it is now.

i didn't realize Bush and Ashcroft sat on the supreme court. :roll: do you take the time to know ANY facts before you open your mouth and spew rhetoric?

I don't recall the USSC being asked about Jose Padilla before he was arrested without charge or legal counsel. I guess it didn't happen since Bush nor Ashcroft is on the SC.

Padilla hasn't been resolved yet, since the SC ruled that the case be refiled in the appropriate district. but in Hamdi the court essentially said it was ok to hold enemy combatants.

 

[SuperTool]

If the cops want my DNA sample, they'll be swabbing it out of their mouths, not mine

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Gibsons
There's nothing wrong with them asking for the samples imo. But citizens have the right to to say no ... or should.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse.

That last part is bad news. I suspect it will end up in court if they follow that course of action.

Yup, everything is OK up until the last part.

I do have to wonder though, do they even have the right to ID you if you refuse? Wouldn't seem that difficult to simply say no & walk away without giving them any info.

Viper GTS

Doesn't matter anymore. In fact, if Ashcroft and Bush had their way, it *would* be specifically illegal to do so. But, doesn't matter. They can grab you and arrest you and hold for you months or years without access to an attorney as it is now.

i didn't realize Bush and Ashcroft sat on the supreme court. :roll: do you take the time to know ANY facts before you open your mouth and spew rhetoric?

I don't recall the USSC being asked about Jose Padilla before he was arrested without charge or legal counsel. I guess it didn't happen since Bush nor Ashcroft is on the SC.

Padilla hasn't been resolved yet, since the SC ruled that the case be refiled in the appropriate district. but in Hamdi the court essentially said it was ok to hold enemy combatants.

The point here is that not long ago holding a CITIZEN as Padilla is was unthinkable. I believe when the SC rules, it will also be permissible to do this. If Bush appointees get in, then it is even more likely to be the case.

Of course it will be "constitutional" once that happens. That being the case, we have less protection that we had before from the government, and make no mistake, it is then legal. What is the basis? That the executive branch is given considerable discression in times of war. Here is the catch. What war? It's not Iraq. Padilla had nothing whatsoever to do with that. It's The War on Terrorism.

A worrying thing for me is that we have allowed the term "war" to be applied. Just how is this "war" to end? It seems when America is secure from terrorism. The US CAN NEVER be secure. As long at the technology, materials and the will to use them exist, we are always vulnerable. Like Winston Smith's fictional Oceania, have now defined a state of war as normal, forever. Just how is this bad? Because the Executive Branch is granted extraordinary latitude in times of war. But the war is forever. Power has increased and shifted to the Presidency. If a President feels something is necessary in war time, it is much harder to overturn or even have heard in court, an executive order. Now add a govt controlled by the same party as a President, and that President adding people like Gonzales to the AG spot, and to the Supreme Court. That Party is the one who advocates perpetual imprisonment without charge. What can it do once it consolidates power completely? Well it can enhance security. DNA printing can eliminate a great deal of crime. It can make law enforcement much easier. I don't doubt that. All we need to do is surrender our identities to the authority.

It's just a little thing. It will make us safer, and safer is what we want. It's the patriotic thing to do. Worked for the Patriot Act, and it can work for this.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If the cops want my DNA sample, they'll be swabbing it out of their mouths, not mine

I'm sure bradruth will volunteer if you reciprocate.