Repeal the 4th Amendment

[Wry Catcher]

Proposition 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding - California State Government

Unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the issue, the link explains California Law in this matter.

 

[Dr.House]

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

The courts differentiate between fingerprints and DNA, which is why you need a warrant for DNA and you don't for fingerprints...

 

[MaggieMae]

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

I hate it when that happens.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

I'll use the same argument used for the PatAct and warrantless surveillance:
If you've got nothing to hide...

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me, the best approach here is to keep the DNA sample on file. You already have the information and it may prove helpful in the future. I do think however, that it should be sealed for those not convicted and unsealing would require a court order for that specific DNA sample with reasonable cause it was that person.

 

[MaggieMae]

Seems to me, the best approach here is to keep the DNA sample on file. You already have the information and it may prove helpful in the future. I do think however, that it should be sealed for those not convicted and unsealing would require a court order for that specific DNA sample with reasonable cause it was that person.

Best answer; best compromise.

 

[saveliberty]

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

I hate it when that happens.

The confusion or repeating yourself? I'm guilt of both occasionaly, sometimes at the same time. I feel the same way.

 

[Si modo]

Seems to me, the best approach here is to keep the DNA sample on file. You already have the information and it may prove helpful in the future. I do think however, that it should be sealed for those not convicted and unsealing would require a court order for that specific DNA sample with reasonable cause it was that person.

I might be able to stomach that. It's a somewhat reasonable compromise. Sort of.

However, this bill doesn't do that. You go into CODIS.

 

[Si modo]

Proposition 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding - California State Government

Unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the issue, the link explains California Law in this matter.

Thanks for the link, Wry. I tried to link on the legal arguments both for and against this and the neutral legal analaysis of this as I think those would be interesting. But, the links didn't work from your page. Do you have another page that might have those links working?

 

[lawbuff]

Si Mod, to repeal the 4th would take an AM, the SC is not going to do it. It was made applicable to the states in 1949, so for almost 60 years it has been ingrained into American Jurisprudence, the SC will not overrule themselves.

I have no problem with the law. Even arguendo, if the SC nullified the 1949 ruling, EVERY state has thier own S&S clause, so without the 4th to universally guide them, they can create thier own.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me, the best approach here is to keep the DNA sample on file. You already have the information and it may prove helpful in the future. I do think however, that it should be sealed for those not convicted and unsealing would require a court order for that specific DNA sample with reasonable cause it was that person.

I might be able to stomach that. It's a somewhat reasonable compromise. Sort of.

However, this bill doesn't do that. You go into CODIS.

Fortunately the world is imperfect, so my imperfect answers are workable. A perfect answer is going to cost you some serious money and me, a huge time commitment. *sigh*

 

[Si modo]

Si Mod, to repeal the 4th would take an AM, the SC is not going to do it. It was made applicable to the states in 1949, so for almost 60 years it has been ingrained into American Jurisprudence, the SC will not overrule themselves.

I have no problem with the law. Even arguendo, if the SC nullified the 1949 ruling, EVERY state has thier own S&S clause, so without the 4th to universally guide them, they can create thier own.

I was being facetious with the title. The 4th is my second favorite Amendment. The 1st is my first.

 

[lawbuff]

Si Mod, to repeal the 4th would take an AM, the SC is not going to do it. It was made applicable to the states in 1949, so for almost 60 years it has been ingrained into American Jurisprudence, the SC will not overrule themselves.

I have no problem with the law. Even arguendo, if the SC nullified the 1949 ruling, EVERY state has thier own S&S clause, so without the 4th to universally guide them, they can create thier own.

I was being facetious with the title. The 4th is my second favorite Amendment. The 1st is my first.

Oh, gotcha!

The 4th is my favorite. I took criminal law in College as my Major, and have attempted to keep up with it. I find it quite fascinating to study.

Parts of the 1st began to be incorporated starting in the 1920's.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

She's right. You're stupid. As usual.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Security, or freedom? Isn't that the issue?
The important point in my mind is, DNA evidence is most probative in crimes against a person.

 

[lawbuff]

Say, I see you live in D.C. Si Modo. I have toured the sites 6 times in my life.

Have you ever toured the Archives where they have the Original 12 AM's on display?

 

[Si modo]

Say, I see you live in D.C. Si Modo. I have toured the sites 6 times in my life.

Have you ever toured the Archives where they have the Original 12 AM's on display?

I really need to get to the Arhives more. I've only been there for their concerts (great stuff) and to look over charts and maps a couple of times.

Note to self: Go again soon.

 

[Si modo]

Security, or freedom? Isn't that the issue?
The important point in my mind is, DNA evidence is most probative in crimes against a person.

Yup. That's the big balancing act, here. But, we still can get DNA with a warrant. I am beyond uncomfortable with that check, one mandated by the 4th, being eliminated.

 

[lawbuff]

Say, I see you live in D.C. Si Modo. I have toured the sites 6 times in my life.

Have you ever toured the Archives where they have the Original 12 AM's on display?

I really need to get to the Arhives more. I've only been there for their concerts (great stuff) and to look over charts and maps a couple of times.

Note to self: Go again soon.

They have a 1296 copy of the Magna Carta. Ross Perot once owned it, sold it, and I believe the new owner gave it to the Archives, or it is on permanent loan?

As I am sure you know, the 1st 2 AM's sent to the states did not get ratified, so we back them up 2, the 1st was actually the 3rd Article, and the 4th was actually the 6th, etc.

The Declaration is badly faded, but the Original 7 Articles are in tact fairly well.

At Jefferson's Monticello, hanging on the wall is an 1820 or so Copy of the Declaration, in very good shape. About 26 Dunlap Broadsides still exist today, including the one just found in an English library a few years back.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

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.

She's right. You're stupid. As usual.

Yes, more brilliance form Gunny, you really show how smart you are with every post

You are such a disgrace to the human species, its so sad. How the fuck a shithead like you became admin of a forum is beyond me, and no wonder why its full of trollish dumbfucks like yourself