Katie's law, unconstitutional?

[The Rabbi]

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

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

That's a good reason right there not to do it.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Trust you to go into black helicopter territory...

 

[JoeB131]

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.

If you are arrested, they take your fingerprints. And if your fingerprints match "those found at a murder scene", they are going to have a few questions for you.

I don't have a real problem with this.

 

[martybegan]

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.

If you are arrested, they take your fingerprints. And if your fingerprints match "those found at a murder scene", they are going to have a few questions for you.

I don't have a real problem with this.

Not only that, it can actually clear you. If they test whatever fluids are found at the scene, and yours dont match, the case against you gets a big negative against it. It wont clear you 100% but depending on the source of the DNA, its a big heap of reasonable doubt.