Police taking DNA upon arrest

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iMikeT, Jun 3, 2013.

  1. iMikeT, Jun 3, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2013

    iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #1
    Say goodbye to even more of your freedoms, rights, and privacy and say hello to the police state.

    The Supreme Court ruled that police officers can now take your DNA the moment they arrest you. No need to be convicted before they take a sample.

    Link to Reuters article.
     
  2. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #2
    Frightening. But giving up real freedom for theoretical security goes back a long time and I'm always amazed that there is no real outcry at all in our developed countries. Seems to me that too many are too well off privatly while too many are too wide off from politics and society and don't care at all, as well. Not too mention loads of propaganda. Here they're about to use drones to fight sprayer. :rolleyes:
     
  3. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #3
    And this is different from permanent storage of fingerprints from people arrested...how?

    ----------

    You're wrong. Read the article you just linked to:

    "a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police can take a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested and charged but not convicted of a serious crime."
     
  4. iMikeT thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #4

    I was typing faster than I was thinking so I corrected my original post.

    This is different because fingerprints and photos are impression of a person. DNA is literally a piece of a person and can even be considered as property thus violating the 4th amendment's unreasonable search and seizure statute.
     
  5. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #5
    In addition to this, there's a LOT more information they can discover about you using DNA than simply your identity. Yes, I know they say they only use 13 "junk" markers for identification purposes, but they're collecting the whole sample, not just those 13 markers. That information is sitting in a vault somewhere, whether they intend to use it or not.

    This is more like taking someone's blood than taking their fingerprints. And to take blood, I believe you need a warrant or court order.
     
  6. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #6
    Oh believe me I agree, I hate this decision, but I also think taking fingerprints of arrestees is bulls*it as well.

    I think the reason you need a warrant to get blood is that it's an invasive procedure, needle and all that (i.e. not because of the substance being taken, but the procedure). I guess they think that a cheek swab is "minimally invasive", so it doesn't require a warrant.
     
  7. iMikeT thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #7

    I think forcibly taking a DNA sample within 3mm of the epidermis, no matter the method, without consent or court order is invasive.
     
  8. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #8
    Wait until they start taking a sample in the delivery room to upload to a database.

    I can see the good and bad that could come from that.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    How do they take DNA for rape case arrests? Do you have to consent to it or can they use probable cause?
     
  10. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #10
    From what I gather watching Law & Order: SVU, they try to convince you to give a sample by saying "If you did nothing wrong, they prove it by giving us a sample", if that doesn't work they need probable cause for a warrant.

    If you're lucky they may discard a cigarette or cup right in front of you.
     
  11. iMikeT thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #11

    As far as I know, suspects in a rape case must consent as suspicion is not enough for probable cause.

    There is old-fashioned investigative work by obtaining DNA by looking through a suspect's garbage thus avoiding the need for consent. Of course, that means police officers will need to get their hands dirty.

    ----------


    Dun dunnn...
     
  12. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #12
    It looks like the conservatives and liberals are actually agreeing on something at macroomers.com. The end must be near :)
     
  13. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #13
    There are many people in this forum willing to give up other Constitutional rights so I don't see why this would bother them in the least.
    I am sure they will start taking samples at these "automobile safety checkpoints" in no time at all.
     
  14. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #14
    The case involved someone who had been arrested and subsequently charged. Until they start doing both those things at "automobile safety checkpoints" to everyone that goes through them, I don't see the relevance of the decision.
     
  15. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #15
    They can fingerprint you now, right? Then taking a DNA sample is no different.
     
  16. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #16
    Until, until, but until, but but, until...

    Open your eyes! The only rights you have are the ones you fight for.

    If you wait till you have none to speak up, you will be speaking to the butt of a rifle and a bullet to the head!
     
  17. iMikeT thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #17

    Read post #4.

    ----------


    Unfortunately, we're nothing more than frogs sitting in a pot of slowly boiling water. Too many of us have given up our most basic rights for this false sense of security.
     
  18. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #18
    You still haven't proven how they're different from a legal standpoint. DNA and fingerprints prove who you are beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why they're the same.
     
  19. iMikeT thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #19

    So there's DNA in fingerprints and fingerprints in DNA? :confused:
     
  20. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #20
    Did you know that the process of profiling someone using their DNA is often called "genetic fingerprinting"?

    DNA is used in the same way as fingerprinting. They're not literally the same thing.

    So upon being arrested, having your mouth swabbed for a DNA sample is no different legally than having your fingerprints taken.
     
  21. iMikeT thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #21

    The term "genetic fingerprinting" is an analogy.

    There was a legal distinction until today. SCOTUS ruled that DNA, which can be considered property of a person, can be taken by force upon arrest. Now a person must involuntarily submit a DNA sample upon arrest without proof of them being involved in a crime and simply based off "suspicion". The real issue here is the fact that the citizenry has lost the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty, we are now guilty and have to prove our innocence in the USA. The investigative process has been completely thrown out the window and we have lost even more of our privacy rights, sounds like big government doesn't it?
     
  22. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #22
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23
    But it's a slippery slope. How far behind it can polygamy be?
     
  24. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #24

    Or marrying animals right? :D Are you using the Santorum argument?
     
  25. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #25
    DNA is capable of revealing a GREAT deal more information about you than a fingerprint will ever be able to. That's why they're different.
     

Share This Page