Man tased in order to obtain DNA sample

[Rockinacoustic]

NIAGARA COURTS RULING: Taser use to obtain DNA not unconstitutional

Source

A decision by Falls Police to use a Taser to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect in an armed robbery, shooting and kidnapping is not unconstitutional.

Niagara County Court Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza reached that conclusion in a 16 page decision handed down Wednesday that refused to dismiss an indictment against Ryan Smith and denied his request to have DNA evidence that links him to two separate criminal cases thrown out.

The ruling left Smith?s attorney, Patrick Balkin, stunned and requesting additional time to prepare for a trial that had been scheduled to begin later this month.

?Your honor, I was not expecting this ruling,? Balkin said. ?I have not begun to have the DNA evidence analyzed and will need time to do that.?

Sperrazza set a new trial date of Aug. 10.

?I was not surprised. I was confident the judge would rule in our favor,? Assistant District Attorney Doreen Hoffmann said. ?Clearly, we are satisfied that the judge heard all the evidence at the hearing and made the correct decision.?

Balkin sharply questioned the ruling.

?She?s the first judge in western civilization to say you can use a Taser to enforce a court order,? Balkin said.

Smith, standing next to his attorney as the decision was announced, showed no reaction. He faces charges of first-degree robbery, burglary, second-degree kidnapping and other crimes stemming from a pair of incidents in 2006.

In July 2006, Smith is accused of being one of four suspects who staged a home invasion in the Falls that involved tying up two children with duct tape and forcing their mother to go to another home where a man was shot in a robbery attempt.

Then on Christmas Eve 2006, Smith is accused of staging the armed hold-up of a gas station and convenience store on Hyde Park Boulevard and Ontario Avenue.

Detectives recovered DNA evidence from a pop can at the home invasion scene and from a glove left behind at the robbery scene and a search of the state?s DNA data base matched that evidence to Smith. Prosecutors asked Sperrazza for an order to get a DNA sample from Smith in August 2008 and he voluntarily gave that sample to police.

In September 2008, prosecutors asked for another DNA sample because the first one had been sent to the wrong laboratory and could not be used. Sperrazza signed the second request and Falls Police went looking for Smith.

When they found Smith and took him to police headquarters, he refused to give another sample, telling the officers that he would have to ?be tased? to give one. After detectives and officers tried to get Smith to comply with the court order, and he refused, they drive stunned him with a Taser and then took the DNA sample.

Balkin had argued that the use of the Taser to get Smith to give up the DNA sample violated his constitutional right against an unreasonable search and seizure. Sperrazza ruled that the police action was reasonable.

Not sure how I feel about this one. Sure the guy deserves some action for not complying with the court order, but there are easier ways to get this guy's DNA.

 

[Jaskalas]

Tasers are best used on the accused, until proven innocent.

 

[BoberFett]

I wonder what other things they'll start using tasers for? Serving papers? Zap you and stick the papers in your twitching hands?

 

[OCGuy]

Tasers need to be banned from law enforcement completely. They use them waaaay too easily.

For cell phone use and "pushing" (It is intertwined with a gun story, but they arent the same incident)

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09155/975068-100.stm

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Maybe they can waterboard the next guy that doesn't comply with a court order. If the guy was already detained then this was just torture.

 

[sactoking]

Wow, that's:

1) Excessive use of force
2) unreasonable search and seizure
3) violation of the Fifth Amendment

off the top of my head. Wonder how long it will be before an ACLU-headed appeal has this in Federal court?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Wow, that's:

1) Excessive use of force

Maybe

2) unreasonable search and seizure

No

3) violation of the Fifth Amendment

No

 

[Fern]

I agree with those who find troubling (and surprising).

Isn't there a common sense solution, instead of this heavy-handed brutal stuff?

Why not put him in jail for contempt of court until he decides to comply?

Are we gonna start tasering journalists who refuse to provide sources when ordered by the court to do so?

Fern

 

[DaveSimmons]

He (literally) asked for it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Another article with more details.
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/692141.html

 

[fallout man]

This is fucked up.

 

[StageLeft]

He refused, he even said they'd hve to tase him, so they did. I don't see any problems.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
He refused, he even said they'd hve to tase him, so they did. I don't see any problems.

Cool.

Mind if I come over later and "swab your cheeks?"

 

[Moonbeam]

This is how those rat bastards got my sample.

 

[Uhtrinity]

In this case getting dna would be no different than requiring someone to be finger printed. I have no issues with that. But to tase someone is going over the line. I like the idea of finding him in contempt of court and locking him up until he complies.

 

[Matthiasa]

Yes, make them have to shoot or beat the person instead...
Me personally, I would rather be Tasered then end up with a bullet in me or broken bones... but maybe that?s just me.

Oh and I see nothing wrong with what the police did in that instance.
He resisted the officers; it could have ended much worse for the man.

 

[bamacre]

There are much easier ways of obtaining someone's DNA.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Tasers need to be banned from law enforcement completely. They use them waaaay too easily.

For cell phone use and "pushing" (It is intertwined with a gun story, but they arent the same incident)

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09155/975068-100.stm

Wasn't expecting that.

Originally posted by: bamacre
There are much easier ways of obtaining someone's DNA.

giggity

 

[manowar821]

Personally, I'd call this assault. But then again, I have fucking self-respect.

 

[vhx]

Applying pain to force compliance, hmm where have I heard this before?

Tasers are used too much. I always thought they were suppose to be used instead of guns in otherwise lethal situations or when a suspect gets violent, not when they are sitting down handcuffed. Didn't realize this is becoming the 'better do as I say or else' device. Pretty disgusting IMO.

But I guess these are just enhanced information gathering techniques.

 

[techs]

Some things are not clear in the article.
Did the suspect resist arrest? If the police came with a court order and he refused to comply he should have been arrested. If he resisted arrest the taser was appropriate.
However, to tase him to obtain the sample seems to be wrong.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Tasers need to be banned from law enforcement completely. They use them waaaay too easily.

For cell phone use and "pushing" (It is intertwined with a gun story, but they arent the same incident)

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09155/975068-100.stm

Yeah, we'll just go back to shooting suspects in the legs or pistol whipping the face. :roll:

The guy refused to comply with a court order. If a taser stun was the most efficient way for the cops to get the DNA, then he gets tased. The article makes no mention of the crimes either, they could have been violent crimes and the officers may not have wanted to approach him.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: OCguy
Tasers need to be banned from law enforcement completely. They use them waaaay too easily.

For cell phone use and "pushing" (It is intertwined with a gun story, but they arent the same incident)

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09155/975068-100.stm

Yeah, we'll just go back to shooting suspects in the legs or pistol whipping the face. :roll:

The guy refused to comply with a court order. If a taser stun was the most efficient way for the cops to get the DNA, then he gets tased. The article makes no mention of the crimes either, they could have been violent crimes and the officers may not have wanted to approach him.

No, the most efficient way is not the right way. They should have arrested him and only tased him if he resisted arrest.
Geez, the most effecient way to cut crime would be to just kill all the suspects. Then the odds would side that you would eventually kill the right person.

 

[Lemon law]

In regards to a court order to give a DNA sample, when runs square against the constitutional right against self incrimination, some mere county court judge can hardly be a decider or last word on such a question. And as such, the suspect had a legal right to appeal that order to a higher court.

And therefore the use of a taser is wrong and would only maybe be justified if the suspect became violent over another issue.

The fact that the fool taunted the police with the remark you will have to taze me to get the DNA sample is merely a meaning side issue.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: techs
Some things are not clear in the article.
Did the suspect resist arrest? If the police came with a court order and he refused to comply he should have been arrested. If he resisted arrest the taser was appropriate.
However, to tase him to obtain the sample seems to be wrong.

From the more detailed article I linked to:

Smith was handcuffed and sitting on the floor of Niagara Falls Police Headquarters when he was zapped with the 50,000- volt electronic stun gun after he insisted he would not give a DNA sample.

This guy is a real PoS, but it really bothers me so many people, especially that judge, seem to think it's OK for law enforcement to behave this way.