Anyone arrested in N.J. to give DNA sample

[chanel]

Under a measure introduced in the state Assembly, police would be required to collect DNA samples of anyone arrested.

Assemblyman Gary Chiusano (R-Sussex), who introduced the bill this week, said expanding DNA collection would help law enforcement solve more crimes and would be no more invasive than fingerprinting.

Currently, only those convicted of a crime must provide DNA samples. Under Chiusano’s bill (A4134), people who give a sample but are not convicted would be able to petition a judge to remove the information from the state DNA database.

Critics of the measure, and many others like it across the country, have raised serious privacy concerns and said it would place an additional and expensive burden on local police departments, which are already facing sharp cutbacks.

Assembly bill would require anyone arrested in N.J. to give DNA sample | NJ.com

My number one concern is the cost. Comments?

 

[martybegan]

Under a measure introduced in the state Assembly, police would be required to collect DNA samples of anyone arrested.

Assemblyman Gary Chiusano (R-Sussex), who introduced the bill this week, said expanding DNA collection would help law enforcement solve more crimes and would be no more invasive than fingerprinting.

Currently, only those convicted of a crime must provide DNA samples. Under Chiusano’s bill (A4134), people who give a sample but are not convicted would be able to petition a judge to remove the information from the state DNA database.

Critics of the measure, and many others like it across the country, have raised serious privacy concerns and said it would place an additional and expensive burden on local police departments, which are already facing sharp cutbacks.

Assembly bill would require anyone arrested in N.J. to give DNA sample | NJ.com

My number one concern is the cost. Comments?

What is the exact cost per sample, say as opposed to the cost of fingerprints, mug shots and other identifying procedures used during arrest?

The cost thing could be a real concern. As for privacy, the DNA samples taken for ID purposes is not a true DNA sequencing, only a comparison of certain markers. The state would not be able to see if you had genetic issues unless they did a far more rigerous and expensive test.

If current law allows for mug shots and fingerprint records to be kept for people who are arrested only, DNA would probably be legal as well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Under a measure introduced in the state Assembly, police would be required to collect DNA samples of anyone arrested.

Assemblyman Gary Chiusano (R-Sussex), who introduced the bill this week, said expanding DNA collection would help law enforcement solve more crimes and would be no more invasive than fingerprinting.

Currently, only those convicted of a crime must provide DNA samples. Under Chiusano’s bill (A4134), people who give a sample but are not convicted would be able to petition a judge to remove the information from the state DNA database.

Critics of the measure, and many others like it across the country, have raised serious privacy concerns and said it would place an additional and expensive burden on local police departments, which are already facing sharp cutbacks.

Assembly bill would require anyone arrested in N.J. to give DNA sample | NJ.com

My number one concern is the cost. Comments?

If they have the right to fingerprint you simply for being arrested then how is a swab any different? Further they have the right to test your blood under certain situations. Either fingerprinting is invasion or DNA swabs are legal.

 

[chanel]

I agree I had to be fingerprinted for my teaching license and I think its a good idea. But a stamp pad and piece of paper is a lot cheaper than a DNA sample. I'd like to see some figures. NJ is broke.