Katie's law, unconstitutional?

[AmyNation]

Katie's Law: NM Governor Susana Martinez to file arguments in Maryland court test - Carlsbad Current-Argus

Is it unconstitutional to require all people arrested for a felony, provide DNA?

 

[jillian]

Katie's Law: NM Governor Susana Martinez to file arguments in Maryland court test - Carlsbad Current-Argus

Is it unconstitutional to require all people arrested for a felony, provide DNA?

i suspect this court will say it's ok.

 

[AmyNation]

Im not sure I like the idea of requiring all people , who have not been convicted of a crime to submit DNA.

 

[The Rabbi]

Katie's Law: NM Governor Susana Martinez to file arguments in Maryland court test - Carlsbad Current-Argus

Is it unconstitutional to require all people arrested for a felony, provide DNA?

Why? They can be subject to search in other ways. The idea is to see if perhaps they are rapists or something. What's the difference between that and fingerprinting them?

 

[bripat9643]

Katie's Law: NM Governor Susana Martinez to file arguments in Maryland court test - Carlsbad Current-Argus

Is it unconstitutional to require all people arrested for a felony, provide DNA?

Why? They can be subject to search in other ways. The idea is to see if perhaps they are rapists or something. What's the difference between that and fingerprinting them?

Because DNA has a lot of implications other than just identifying you. For instance, it could affect your insurance rates.

 

[Care4all]

To me, it is the equivalent of requiring a person to testify against themselves....it breaks the 5th.... imho.

but who really knows??

 

[AmyNation]

DNA is intrinsically more private than a finger print, IMO.

 

[martybegan]

Katie's Law: NM Governor Susana Martinez to file arguments in Maryland court test - Carlsbad Current-Argus

Is it unconstitutional to require all people arrested for a felony, provide DNA?

Why? They can be subject to search in other ways. The idea is to see if perhaps they are rapists or something. What's the difference between that and fingerprinting them?

Because DNA has a lot of implications other than just identifying you. For instance, it could affect your insurance rates.

I dont think they analyze the DNA that deeply when they do it for forensic purposes.

DNA profiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

DNA is intrinsically more private than a finger print, IMO.

They can give you a full body cavity search before jailing you. I dont know anything more intrusive than that.

 

[AmyNation]

DNA is intrinsically more private than a finger print, IMO.

They can give you a full body cavity search before jailing you. I dont know anything more intrusive than that.

Ha!

Well yes. However a body cavity search falls under insuring the saftey of others. Finger printing you makes sure you are who you say you are.

You should need a warrant for DNA, it shouldnt be something the government
is automatically entitled to when someone is arrested.

 

[martybegan]

DNA is intrinsically more private than a finger print, IMO.

They can give you a full body cavity search before jailing you. I dont know anything more intrusive than that.

Ha!

Well yes. However a body cavity search falls under insuring the saftey of others. Finger printing you makes sure you are who you say you are.

You should need a warrant for DNA, it shouldnt be something the government
is automatically entitled to when someone is arrested.

Just remember it is equally useful as a method of clearing a person of a crime.

To me the sequences are the same as fingerprints. They dont say if you are prone to heart attacks, or have a genetic disorder. All they consist of is unique markers that either show a sample comes from you, or doesnt.

 

[Clementine]

Im not sure I like the idea of requiring all people , who have not been convicted of a crime to submit DNA.

I would agree with you on that. Once convicted, they should submit DNA, but up until then they are innocent until proven guilty. I also take issue with how defendents are treated because they have so much negative press before a trial that it's difficult to find an impartial jury. Even when some are found not guilty, their reputation is ruined for life.

I think people's identities should be protected up to some point, at least till the beginning of trial. I know the public has a right to know things, but it's also important to protect the innocent. Even if they just release a name, but not allow the suspect to be photographed and then bad mouthed for months before a trial would make things more fair. I think it's France that protects identities before a person is convicted. Remember how upset they were when the head of the IMF was falsely accused of rape here in the states? The media here had the guy tried and convicted and it turned out he had done nothing wrong. Of course, Obama named a new IMF chief and I wondered if that whole thing was a ruse to get rid of the guy.

Sorry, this whole issue is a pet peeve of mine. I think people should pay for their crimes, but we must respect the innocent until proven guilty rule and simply being arrested doesn't make one a criminal.

Police are human and make mistakes. DAs often worry more about making a name for themselves rather than seeking justice.

Forcing those arrested to submit to DNA tests shows an arrogance on the part of the system, as if they never get it wrong. They do and a conviction needs to come first, then getting a DNA sample. At this point, I could go on another rant about how some trials are jokes and people are sent to prison without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The DAs make people hate the defendent so they want to find them guilty. I'll hop off the soapbox now.

 

[Moonglow]

DNA is intrinsically more private than a finger print, IMO.

They can give you a full body cavity search before jailing you. I dont know anything more intrusive than that.

Watching Rosie O'Donnel's gay cruise HBO special.
Proctology exam

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maryland vs. King involves the arrest in 2009 of Alonzo Jay King Jr. on suspicion of first-degree assault.

State law required King to provide police with a DNA sample prior to conviction. The sample connected him to an unsolved rape that was committed at gunpoint in 2003.

The state of Maryland prosecuted and convicted King for the rape. But the Maryland Court of Appeals - the state's highest court - overturned King's conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has since intervened. King's attorneys said his Fourth Amendment rights to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures were violated.

Of course it’s a 4th Amendment violation.

 

[martybegan]

Maryland vs. King involves the arrest in 2009 of Alonzo Jay King Jr. on suspicion of first-degree assault.

State law required King to provide police with a DNA sample prior to conviction. The sample connected him to an unsolved rape that was committed at gunpoint in 2003.

The state of Maryland prosecuted and convicted King for the rape. But the Maryland Court of Appeals - the state's highest court - overturned King's conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has since intervened. King's attorneys said his Fourth Amendment rights to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures were violated.

Of course it’s a 4th Amendment violation.

I dont see how. The evidence (the sample) was left behind at the crime scene. If this were fingerprints any ID would pass a 4th amendment test, as the actual evidence was also left behind at the crime scene.

DNA sequencing is nothing more than a high tech fingerprint.

 

[Mad Scientist]

One of the many reasons you should be careful about who gets access to your DNA:

Can Corporations Own Your DNA? - CBS News

 

[Ernie S.]

Im not sure I like the idea of requiring all people , who have not been convicted of a crime to submit DNA.

I see your point, but would you want fingerprint records purged if a suspect was arrested as well?
My fingerprints are on file due to a security background check. Should they have been purged when the check was complete?

 

[The Rabbi]

Im not sure I like the idea of requiring all people , who have not been convicted of a crime to submit DNA.

I see your point, but would you want fingerprint records purged if a suspect was arrested as well?
My fingerprints are on file due to a security background check. Should they have been purged when the check was complete?

I've been fingerprinted so many times it isn't funny.

 

[Noomi]

Im not sure I like the idea of requiring all people , who have not been convicted of a crime to submit DNA.

I agree. If you have been convicted of a crime, yes, if not, I don't think they have any right to your DNA.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We've been collecting DNA for a number of years in CA. See:

Federal appeals court upholds DNA 'test on arrest' - POLITICO.com