Repeal the 4th Amendment

[Si modo]

Why bother even having the 4th Amendment in our Constitution any longer? It has been so eroded over the years, and now the Democratic House has this to add as another notch in the 4th: Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010
(passed 357 to 32)

Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to increase by 10% payments under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program to states that implement and use an enhanced DNA collection process. Decreases by 5% the amount of such payments to states that fail to implement or use a minimum DNA collection process. Defines "enhanced DNA collection process" and "minimum DNA collection process" for purposes of this Act.

`(A) MINIMUM DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term `minimum DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a process under which the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is searched at least one time against samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.

`(B) ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term `enhanced DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a process under which the State provides for the collection, for purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of DNA samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of a specified offense against a minor (as defined in section 111(7) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911(7)), or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iv) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of burglary or any attempt to commit burglary.

`(v) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of aggravated assault.

Damn, if someone fingers you for something you never did, the state gets to take your DNA and keep it on record. And, if the individual states are uneasy with this, well, they don't get the $75,000,000 from the feds each year and even their current funds will be cut.

 

[Dr Gregg]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

HOw does taking a DNA fingerprint, which gives no information about the person's genome, a violation of the 4th amendment? It's the same as a fingerprint, but for the DNA. It gives no information regarding what genes the person possesses, just a fingerprint of digested DNA bands run on a gel for identification purposes only.

 

[JW Frogen]

Don't tread on my DNA!

 

[Si modo]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

HOw does taking a DNA fingerprint, which gives no information about the person's genome, a violation of the 4th amendment? It's the same as a fingerprint, but for the DNA. It gives no information regarding what genes the person possesses, just a fingerprint of digested DNA bands run on a gel for identification purposes only.

Unreasonable search, that's how.

I have no issues with DNA fingerprints in CODIS for convictions. None at all. This is expanded for simple arrests. For that, I have a problem.

And, I have no assurances that the government will properly dispose of the samples once a gel is completed. The Privacy Act of 1974 does not cover this situation, for obvious reasons.

Get a warrant. It's the proper check and it actually works most of the time. Better a slimeball go free from time to time, than more innocents being in the system forever.

 

[Dr Gregg]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

HOw does taking a DNA fingerprint, which gives no information about the person's genome, a violation of the 4th amendment? It's the same as a fingerprint, but for the DNA. It gives no information regarding what genes the person possesses, just a fingerprint of digested DNA bands run on a gel for identification purposes only.

Unreasonable search, that's how.

I have no issues with DNA fingerprints in CODIS for convictions. None at all. This is expanded for simple arrests. For that, I have a problem.

And, I have no assurances that the government will properly dispose of the samples once a gel is completed. The Privacy Act of 1974 does not cover this situation, for obvious reasons.

What are they searching? that's quite a stretch

YOu don't have a clue what you are talking about. The gel provides no information at all, and the DNA is so sparse nothing can be done with it. It's science fiction that anything can be done with that DNA. It's like a fingerprint, nothing else. And its wacky conspiracy theory nonsense is all you ever hear from people against such thing.

 

[boedicca]

Yet another example of how Big Government uses the tax money taken from the states to then manipulate states via the doling it out process.

 

[Si modo]

HOw does taking a DNA fingerprint, which gives no information about the person's genome, a violation of the 4th amendment? It's the same as a fingerprint, but for the DNA. It gives no information regarding what genes the person possesses, just a fingerprint of digested DNA bands run on a gel for identification purposes only.

Unreasonable search, that's how.

I have no issues with DNA fingerprints in CODIS for convictions. None at all. This is expanded for simple arrests. For that, I have a problem.

And, I have no assurances that the government will properly dispose of the samples once a gel is completed. The Privacy Act of 1974 does not cover this situation, for obvious reasons.

What are they searching? that's quite a stretch
....

LOL. Search and seizure law would disagree with you. That's the exact reason warrants are needed for blood and/or DNA samples. This bill does away with the need for most of those warrants.

.... YOu don't have a clue what you are talking about. ....

Au contraire, mon ami. LMAO! I would venture to say that I not only have a clue but am pretty well versed in this area. I guess my several hundred syntheses of nucleic acids and nucleotides and nucleosides, and several hundred annoying fucking gels would give me a wee bit of knowledge about them.

.... The gel provides no information at all, and the DNA is so sparse nothing can be done with it.

Actually, it provides a DNA fingerprint, as I said.

.... It's science fiction that anything can be done with that DNA. It's like a fingerprint, nothing else. And its wacky conspiracy theory nonsense is all you ever hear from people against such thing.

What part of my previous post has you so confused? Read it again. You're just repeating yourself, now.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Whether or not the law agrees with you remains to be seen, as the final court decisions on the matter have yet to be made. Guess we will see.


but its science fiction/conspiracy theory that any information other than a fingerprint occurs by taking a DNA sample for fingerprinting

 

[Si modo]

Whether or not the law agrees with you remains to be seen, as the final court decisions on the matter have yet to be made. Guess we will see.


but its science fiction/conspiracy theory that any information other than a fingerprint occurs by taking a DNA sample for fingerprinting

The current law is already established and has been for years. A warrant is needed for DNA.

The second line of your post is your strawman.

The Privacy Act of 1974 is inadequate in dealing with how the government will handle the reamining sample taken from citizens. That is a problem. Only a very small a protion of a swab is needed for a gel leaving the gross majority of the swab in the hands of the state. This is a big problem for any citizen who has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning their own physical person.

And, frankly, DNA fingerprints provide much more information than simple fingerprint scans. For example, familial relationships cannot be gleaned from one's fingerprints. That is intimate information that the government will possess, just for example, about non-convicted innocents.

 

[rightwinger]

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.

Works for me....we want these creeps off the street. If they are wanted on other charges DNA will identify them

The Fourth Amendment requires "Probable Cause"...the fact that they are already arrested satisfies probable cause

 

[Si modo]

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.

Works for me....we want these creeps off the street. If they are wanted on other charges DNA will identify them

The Fourth Amendment requires "Probable Cause"...the fact that they are already arrested satisfies probable cause

Actually, simple arrests do not satisfy probable cause for DNA samples. Warrants are the proper check for that probable cause and are currently needed. This does away with that check, a check mandated by the 4th Amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.

Works for me....we want these creeps off the street. If they are wanted on other charges DNA will identify them

The Fourth Amendment requires "Probable Cause"...the fact that they are already arrested satisfies probable cause

Actually, simple arrests do not satisfy probable cause for DNA samples. Warrants are the proper check for that probable cause and are currently needed. This does away with that check, a check mandated by the 4th Amendment.

Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Is a DNA swab unreasonable? No

Is there probable cause? Yes or they wouldn't have been arrested

Does it serve the common good? Yes

Lets give the police this tool to protect the public. Let the court decide if it is constitutional

 

[traveler52]

Why bother even having the 4th Amendment in our Constitution any longer? It has been so eroded over the years, and now the Democratic House has this to add as another notch in the 4th: Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010
(passed 357 to 32)

Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to increase by 10% payments under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program to states that implement and use an enhanced DNA collection process. Decreases by 5% the amount of such payments to states that fail to implement or use a minimum DNA collection process. Defines "enhanced DNA collection process" and "minimum DNA collection process" for purposes of this Act.

`(A) MINIMUM DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term `minimum DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a process under which the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is searched at least one time against samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.

`(B) ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term `enhanced DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a process under which the State provides for the collection, for purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of DNA samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of a specified offense against a minor (as defined in section 111(7) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911(7)), or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iv) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of burglary or any attempt to commit burglary.

`(v) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of aggravated assault.

Damn, if someone fingers you for something you never did, the state gets to take your DNA and keep it on record. And, if the individual states are uneasy with this, well, they don't get the $75,000,000 from the feds each year and even their current funds will be cut.

Just to be clear. You have no problem with the flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment under bushie and dickie right?

"The Right of the eopel to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to searched, and the persons and things to be seized."

The bushies threw the 4th Amendment out the window, and only now your begining to bitch about a DNA swab?

 

[Si modo]

Works for me....we want these creeps off the street. If they are wanted on other charges DNA will identify them

The Fourth Amendment requires "Probable Cause"...the fact that they are already arrested satisfies probable cause

Actually, simple arrests do not satisfy probable cause for DNA samples. Warrants are the proper check for that probable cause and are currently needed. This does away with that check, a check mandated by the 4th Amendment.

Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Is a DNA swab unreasonable? No
....

The courts currently think so. That's why a warrant is needed for them.

.... Is there probable cause? Yes or they wouldn't have been arrested
....

There is not probable cause for a DNA sample, according to the courts. That's why a warrant is needed.

.... Does it serve the common good? Yes
....

The courts disagree and that's why a warrant is currently needed.

.... Lets give the police this tool to protect the public. Let the court decide if it is constitutional

The courts have and that's why a warrant is currently needed.

 

[Si modo]

Why bother even having the 4th Amendment in our Constitution any longer? It has been so eroded over the years, and now the Democratic House has this to add as another notch in the 4th: Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010
(passed 357 to 32)

Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to increase by 10% payments under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program to states that implement and use an enhanced DNA collection process. Decreases by 5% the amount of such payments to states that fail to implement or use a minimum DNA collection process. Defines "enhanced DNA collection process" and "minimum DNA collection process" for purposes of this Act.

`(A) MINIMUM DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term `minimum DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a process under which the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is searched at least one time against samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.

`(B) ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION PROCESS- The term `enhanced DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a process under which the State provides for the collection, for purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of DNA samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 years of age:

`(i) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.

`(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of a specified offense against a minor (as defined in section 111(7) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911(7)), or an attempt to commit such an offense.

`(iv) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of burglary or any attempt to commit burglary.

`(v) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of aggravated assault.

Damn, if someone fingers you for something you never did, the state gets to take your DNA and keep it on record. And, if the individual states are uneasy with this, well, they don't get the $75,000,000 from the feds each year and even their current funds will be cut.

Just to be clear. You have no problem with the flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment under bushie and dickie right?

"The Right of the eopel to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to searched, and the persons and things to be seized."

The bushies threw the 4th Amendment out the window, and only now your begining to bitch about a DNA swab?

Hmmmm. Let's look at the second sentence in my OP: "It has been so eroded over the years, and now the Democratic House has this to add as another notch in the 4th."


Now, what the fuck are you going on about?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Whether or not the law agrees with you remains to be seen, as the final court decisions on the matter have yet to be made. Guess we will see.


but its science fiction/conspiracy theory that any information other than a fingerprint occurs by taking a DNA sample for fingerprinting

The current law is already established and has been for years. A warrant is needed for DNA.

The second line of your post is your strawman.

The Privacy Act of 1974 is inadequate in dealing with how the government will handle the reamining sample taken from citizens. That is a problem. Only a very small a protion of a swab is needed for a gel leaving the gross majority of the swab in the hands of the state. This is a big problem for any citizen who has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning their own physical person.

And, frankly, DNA fingerprints provide much more information than simple fingerprint scans. For example, familial relationships cannot be gleaned from one's fingerprints. That is intimate information that the government will possess, just for example, about non-convicted innocents.

Again, not true in every case:

An Indiana appeals court has ruled that police do not need to obtain a search warrant before forcing someone to submit to a DNA test, a move that raises important privacy questions.

Indiana Court: No Warrant Needed To Force DNA Testing - Taking Liberties - CBS News

risoners who have been subjected to mandatory statutes that condition their release from prison on them providing a DNA sample have attacked the statutes on Fourth Amendment grounds. Relying on the Fourth Amendment prisoners argue that the mandatory blood testing authorized by these statutes constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. (10)0 In response to such attacks both federal and state courts have found that the mandatory blood collection constitutes a search, but that the searches are "constitutional because the blood testing is minimally intrusive, and the state's interest in establishing offenders' identities is great." (11)1 In making this determination courts generally impose a balancing test in order to weigh the state's interest against the intrusion that will occur as a result of the testing. (12)

DNA and Privacy

This exception permits warrantless searches where the court finds there to a "special need for the search independent of a law enforcement purpose in determining reasonableness." (13) This approach looks at the increased efficiency to prosecutions and the deterrence of felons as viable administrative purposes. The diminished privacy rights approach, which has been adopted by a majority of courts, argues that prisoners have diminished rights and thus allows blood collection for DNA analyses purposes. (14) Because prisoners lose their right to be free from routine searches they also lose most of their Fourth Amendment protections. Courts have also found that prisoners do not have a privacy interest in DNA information. (15) In addition to these Fourth Amendment attacks statutes authorizing mandatory DNA sampling have also been attacked on various other constitutional grounds.

 

[Si modo]

Whether or not the law agrees with you remains to be seen, as the final court decisions on the matter have yet to be made. Guess we will see.


but its science fiction/conspiracy theory that any information other than a fingerprint occurs by taking a DNA sample for fingerprinting

The current law is already established and has been for years. A warrant is needed for DNA.

The second line of your post is your strawman.

The Privacy Act of 1974 is inadequate in dealing with how the government will handle the reamining sample taken from citizens. That is a problem. Only a very small a protion of a swab is needed for a gel leaving the gross majority of the swab in the hands of the state. This is a big problem for any citizen who has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning their own physical person.

And, frankly, DNA fingerprints provide much more information than simple fingerprint scans. For example, familial relationships cannot be gleaned from one's fingerprints. That is intimate information that the government will possess, just for example, about non-convicted innocents.

Again, not true in every case:

Indiana Court: No Warrant Needed To Force DNA Testing - Taking Liberties - CBS News

risoners who have been subjected to mandatory statutes that condition their release from prison on them providing a DNA sample have attacked the statutes on Fourth Amendment grounds. Relying on the Fourth Amendment prisoners argue that the mandatory blood testing authorized by these statutes constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. (10)0 In response to such attacks both federal and state courts have found that the mandatory blood collection constitutes a search, but that the searches are "constitutional because the blood testing is minimally intrusive, and the state's interest in establishing offenders' identities is great." (11)1 In making this determination courts generally impose a balancing test in order to weigh the state's interest against the intrusion that will occur as a result of the testing. (12)

DNA and Privacy

This exception permits warrantless searches where the court finds there to a "special need for the search independent of a law enforcement purpose in determining reasonableness." (13) This approach looks at the increased efficiency to prosecutions and the deterrence of felons as viable administrative purposes. The diminished privacy rights approach, which has been adopted by a majority of courts, argues that prisoners have diminished rights and thus allows blood collection for DNA analyses purposes. (14) Because prisoners lose their right to be free from routine searches they also lose most of their Fourth Amendment protections. Courts have also found that prisoners do not have a privacy interest in DNA information. (15) In addition to these Fourth Amendment attacks statutes authorizing mandatory DNA sampling have also been attacked on various other constitutional grounds.

True. A handful of states already do this. I know locally, Virginia is one of them. Honestly, I don't know if it has been challenged yet.

For those states who are uneasy with this lower standard of cause, this is federal legislation that will reward states to lower the standard of cause and actually penalize them if they do not. That's not an easy position for a state who values a higher standard of cause for search and seizure (the warrant) to be in.

 

[JW Frogen]

Oooo wee, let's just let the state keep our DNA record on record even though we have not been convicted of any crime just because we have been arrested or suspected.

Why not for speeding tickets too?

Or if we curse in public?

Or conversely, the state can do actual police work in the context of a democratic society.

 

[Si modo]

Oooo wee, let's just let the state keep our DNA record on record even though we have not been convicted of any crime just because we have been arrested or suspected.

Why not for speeding tickets too?

Or if we curse in public?

Or conversely, the state can do actual police work in the context of a democratic society.

I need to drink more so that I can be as eloquent as you are.

 

[rightwinger]

Oooo wee, let's just let the state keep our DNA record on record even though we have not been convicted of any crime just because we have been arrested or suspected.

Why not for speeding tickets too?

Or if we curse in public?

Or conversely, the state can do actual police work in the context of a democratic society.

When you are arrested and booked, they currently take a mug shot and fingerprints which are kept on file. They are not expunged if you are found not guilty