Taking DNA samples at arrest. Should they?
 

So a new bill being introduced into legislation would require anyone arrested for a felony to submit a DNA sample. Some say it's modern fingerprinting, others are concerned about how the information will be stored and managed, who will have access to the information, etc.

On one hand, I don't see a problem with it, it will help solve crimes a bit quicker, and you only get your DNA taken if you are arrested.

On the other hand, there are innocent people arrested mistakenly, and their DNA will be logged. But if they are innocent, it shouldn't matter.

I know my DNA is logged somewhere. When I was in the Army they took our DNA before we went into Iraq.

It could be the start of a big brother kind of deal, but I'm not sure the US government is organized enough to actually do that sort of thing.

Is collecting DNA samples wrong? Is there a danger no one has mentioned yet? Is it intruding on personal privacy?

from my cold dead body.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation upon which our legal system is built. It's something I believe in completely. When you are arrested, you are still legally innocent. It's not until you're convicted that you are guilty. Collecting DNA before the conviction is collecting DNA from an innocent person.

I posted my thoughts on this a while back. There's so much DNA out there. Too many chances of contamination and mislabeling, corruption ... And that's not even mentioning that it's totally disregarding the premise of our legal system.

Maybe I'm just worried 'cause my hair is all over the State of Florida and every highway I've traveled. :paranoid:

So, if you are arrested for a crime, will you pull a gun and refuse to be arrested? Or will you go peacefully?

Once you have gone peacefully, they can (and apparently will) take your DNA.

I don't see the difference in fingerprints or DNA. Both can be collected painlessly and you don't get ink on you from DNA. A joke, a joke!!

If they can legally obtain fingerprints now there is already a precedent for collecting unique identifiers at the point of arrest, guilty or not. They also take your photo when they book you, yet another identifier. Science continues to make the identifiers better. The Patriot Act continues to take away our civil liberties. What else is new?

Since I don't commit felonies, I will resist the unlawful arrest with the appropriate amount of force necessary to deter such unlawful arrest. It is completely up to the so called law enforcement officer whether he wants to increase the level of force.

i have no problem whatsoever with appropriate officials taking a sample of my dna...shoot, they've had my fingerprints since i went in the service...i'm not paranoid enough to think that evil will befall me for doing the right thing...and i've never heard of an unlawful arrest...

If you resist arrest, a police officer's increase in level of force is pretty much a given. Whether you are shot with,a Taser or with a 10mm pistol, depends mostly if not entirely upon you, i.e. upon how you are resisting and with what.

That will end nicely.

I don't have a problem with it. It is just like collecting fingerprints and a photo.

and this would be why it pays to know the law.

If an officer approaches me and begins to ask questions about me, I simply ask 'am i being detained?'. If I am being detained, my next question is 'what is your articulate reasonable suspicion that I have, am, or am about to commit a crime?'

These are very specific words in case law and statutes that should let the officer know right away that I know the law. If the officer cannot state the articulable reasonable suspicion of a real crime, then I ask once again, 'am I being detained?'. At this point, the officer has two options....he can let me be on my way or he can say I am being detained. If he still detains me, I immediately ask for his supervisor and then I shut my mouth. Not another word.

An officer cannot just abitrarily arrest someone because they feel like it. There must be articulate reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime, am committing a crime, or am about to commit a crime.

If DNA taking becomes law and I am arrested unlawfully and without cause, my DNA sample will have been unlawfully taken.....any bets as to whether or not they will destroy my sample or database record once i'm released? not a bet i'd place.

I will resist an unlawful arrest with any force up to and including lethal force. Then they can charge me with manslaughter.

dk, your knowledge of the law is dazzling. You might want to make sure your will is up to date.

I'll be the counter-argument for a minute. If I'm being arrested for something I'm innocent of, you're DAMN RIGHT I want them taking a DNA sample. That's the fastest and surest way to get cleared of the crime.

I know there are privacy concerns and worries about the integrity of the police. But if I don't give my DNA, I don't have a shot at getting cleared on those grounds.

Now, if I'm guilty I obviously have an interest in not having giving a sample, and I wouldn't want to volunteer one. It should probably be treated like a search of personal property--i.e. compelled by a warrant (or, as is surely the more common case, acquired through trickery).

Rat, that's the same argument made for all privacy issues. "Sure, you can search my car! I have nothing to hide" are probably the famous last words of a lot of people. It's why we have the Fifth Amendment.

I might be breaking a dozen laws right not that I'm completely oblivious to. It's possible that the bananas I bought yesterday weren't packaged correctly and that transporting or having said banana is a violation of US trade law (I'm serious, that's actually happened).

What if a partial match for my DNA was found at a murder scene in Florida? It's not my DNA, but it's close to mine and I don't have an alibi for 12 years ago. I'm screwed.

No, it's different from that. The moment I'm charged with something I didn't commit, it becomes different from that. Because the DNA can be entirely exculpatory--it's not just "I have nothing to hide," it's "I can prove I didn't do that thing."

Don't stand on principles here--if you were arrested on suspicion of a murder, wouldn't you want to provide every piece of evidence you could in your defense?

Also, there's really no such thing as a DNA partial match. Fingerprints can be partial, but DNA's either a match or it's not. They could ask you if a close relative was in Florida 15 years ago, but the DNA is either yours or it's not.

Yes, but how will you manage to say all that... with your face in the dirt, with a foot and its backing bodyweight on your back, and with your arms being cuffed behind you?

:p

Murder? Yes, but it would absolutely have to either be forced by a warrant or entirely voluntary. If it's not voluntary (as the OP suggests), then it's wrong. You either get a warrant or have my permission. Oh, but it doesn't end there either. Let's say I'm arrested and cleared of murder because of my DNA. It stays on file forever despite the fact that I never was convicted? I can't abide that.
Then they don't get my fingerprints either. :no:

Not true. The quality of DNA evidence linked to a crime can be very poor. They may have only fragments of the supposed criminal's genome, which could match up with the corresponding fragments of your genome.

Also, we're shedding DNA all the time. What's the probablility that you shed a hair on the person who sat next to you on the bus, or that the next customer in your booth at a restaurant picked up some of your dead skin cells by accident? Your DNA is in a lot of places, some of which you've never been to, some of which may be or become crime scenes.

This is similar to talking to police and your right to remain silent (see my first blog post). Evidence that you provide, including DNA, can be used to convict you when you're innocent.

if any law enforcement agent initiated my arrest with that kind of force, I can assure you that i'll be dialing up marine corps style lethal force at that point.
-----Added 2/10/2008 at 09 : 46 : 26-----
Rat, take these words to heart and hold them close, dear friend. The police are not there to help you or be your buddy and clear your name. They are there to investigate for criminal activity and arrest those they suspect. Cooperating with police when you are the suspect is a unwise thing at best, for you may be innocent of the crime they are investigating you for, but anything you say or do will be used against you in any other case, and that would include volunteering a dna sample. Do not talk to the police, ever. Let a lawyer do your talking for you.

They can take my DNA when I have been proven guilty in a court of law. Until the jury decides I am guilty, I am innocent. You cannot take DNA from an innocent person, IMO.

I agree with him. They can't DNA you without your consent.

They already have my fingerprints, palm print, DNA, and dental records.

Sadly, my crime was enlisting.

...

As said above: Innocent until proven guilty.

I don't give a damn about the "it's the next step up from fingerprints" argument.

First they take everybody's DNA... next it'll be: "We've always been at war with East Asia, TFP."

...

Wow, somebody thinks that the police are there to help them. That made my day.

Law enforcement's job is to react to and investigate crime. They don't wear capes.
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 08 : 00 : 54-----
Agreeing with you is like using a Brillo pad on my soul, but I will admit to it in this case. In the justice system, lawyers are the appropriate religion... not hope and good intentions.

That's not what I said.

Partial DNA or an entire string. It doesn't matter that much. When they do the testing they are looking for matching sequences not individual genes. The DNA equivalent of matching ridges and whorls on fingerprints. We all share pretty much the same DNA, its just strung together differently.

but it leaves you with such a clean feeling, doesn't it? ;)

I agree with those who oppose DNA testing upon arrest. I suspect that this will be abused, since the police have plenty of discretion to arrest people. I could see it now, innocent people who "fit the description" being arrested for the purpose of getting their DNA into the system. I think that to DNA test someone they should need a warrant from a Judge and that said judges should not hand them out like candy.

I look forward to the day that DNA identification might be near instantaneous. I like that my identity could be confirmed conclusively and quickly (implying that an imposter could be confirmed to be an imposter the same way).

This could be abused, of course, in the same ways that your fingerprints could be planted or your driver's license stolen, but that's a different set of crimes to be managed in a different way. But this will likely never happen (instant DNA identification) because of privacy concerns. Heaven forbid that you should ever have to actually prove who you are, to vote for instance.

After conviction, not arrest. DNA is not a simple step from fingerprinting, because DNA offers much more about us than simple identification. It is, point in fact, the entirety of us. The "slippery slope" for abuses, from theft to misidentification, from health insurance companies demanding it to privacy is too great.

Actually, all it takes to get DNA from ANYone is a simple court order.
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 03 : 59 : 55-----
You are so right. Wait for a supervisor is silly. You will be waiting in cuffs. And once you don't follow instructions it is resisting arrest which, I think, is a felony. Then they get your prits and DNA and you can tell it all to the judge a years later when you finally get to trial. Hopefully you have the cash to post a little bail.

But the laws of the country you live in give them the power to arrest you on suspicion of a crime - it is only wrongful arrest if they think they're arresting someone else and get you, or if they KNOW for a fact that the case against you is not sufficient to investigate further.

The more you struggle the more laws they can pull into play and keep you for real - if you go quietly, and have a good lawyers number committed to memory, you'll be out sooner and proven innocent I'd have thought.

As for myself, I believe that having seen the evidence of strong convictions found following DNA investigation of old cases on new arrests in the UK, I'm in favour of a DNA and fingerprint database for everyone.

One issue is that there is not enough evidence of exactly how reliable DNA profiles are - and therefore a DNA database would allow this statistical basis to be calculated rather than estimated. This in the long run could help PREVENT unsafe convictions.

Resisting arrest is a felony, even if you are innocent.

The Police can, and will, ratchet up the force involved until it is sufficient or lethal. They can do this perfectly legally, and the entire Police complex is willing to land on your back if you feel like upping the stakes.

So once again, what you are saying is "I will kill any police officer who attempts to arrest me"? Because once you are arrested, you won't have the ability to resist having your DNA and/or fingerprints taken.

Why not:
A> Take fingerprints/DNA at arrest, but only compare it to evidence that is part of the crime being arrested for.

B> Only place fingerprints/DNA in the general database upon conviction of a crime (this may include pleading no contest).

Yes, taking DNA from arrested people increases conviction rates. So would taking DNA and fingerprints from every citizen. So would installing a mandatory recorder bracelet on every citizen that records location and local audio for the last 30 days, which can be remotely accessed by police at-will (as, for example, something that could be done right now).

The impact of the recorder bracelet on being able to catch criminals would be huge! When are you going to sign up?

If you're innocent, DNA evidence is more likely to clear you than convict you.

Isn't it a way of matching people they've arrested to other crimes where DNA samples were found? I thought they already did it in the UK.

John Bad Elk v. U.S. is still good case law at this point and has not been overturned by the USSC. As for resisting and potentially killing police officers for UNLAWFUL acts or arrests, maybe this is something they need to remember that they face for stepping outside the bounds of their lawful powers. The courts and government bodies seem to always defend and protect their unlawful acts so maybe 'we the people' should start holding them accountable.

i have to ask, and not in a bad way...dksuddeth, where are you coming from? did you have a bad experience at one time? serious...

I'd rather take a DNA, breathalyser or a drug screen then a polygraph any day. Polygraph's are pseudo science, IMHO. I've seen people submit to two polygraphs by two separate examiners in the same week and get completely different results.

Personally I'd prefer the government seek warrants for DNA and other evidence and/or collect it from those convicted.

But I'm in the same boat as many here, "THEY" (whomever they are) already have all my data.

Actually, no. I come from a small town (pop. 3500) and knew all the police officers locally very well. My few incidents with law enforcement were almost all of my own doing and dealt with on a very civil level. My mindset comes from the multitudes of ignorance, negligence, malfeasance, and outright violations of laws and civil rights of citizens that are perpetrated on a near daily basis by law enforcement agents and the perpetual blanket of protection that those who violate their oaths are provided by city, county, state, and federal bodies of government as well as the courts of all the aforementioned.

If the courts, whose sole duty is to protect the rights of the people against the machinations of the government, are willing participants in the subjugation of the populace, then it's our responsibility to right those wrongs.

i wish i understood...

I wish you did as well, though I understand alot of people don't see things the way I do.

I've spent a bit of time on this board trying to bring to light the abuses that police and government bodies have heaped upon ordinary private citizens and have usually been met with the 'pooh pooh' wave of the hand and a pithy explanation that it's only the result of isolated incidents or a few bad apples. That is all fine and well for alot of people to assume. I've seen and heard how abuses and violations of civil rights are not only tolerated, but heartily approved of in cases throughout the nation....especially because these issues do not reach that individual on a personal basis. It's a simple by-product of the social indoctrination that socialism has entrenched itself that deeply in to the fabric of a free society and has been that way for over 150 years.

One day, maybe, you will find yourself the victim of these abuses and maybe you'll find the werewithal to finally see how the balance of power has shifted and the people are no longer the soveriegn power in this country. I hope it comes before you feel this abuse, but if it takes that episode to make you see the light, then so be it.

I wish you luck.

My simple response: No.

DK, you should however realize that there does exist a rather significant difference between the law on the books, and law in practice.

Case law might apply to an appeals judge 3 years down the road, but to a cop on a beat, you're nothing but a citizen and a suspect.

of which a difference should never exist. To practice law in one way, however it strays away from law in the books, should never be tolerated. It's the same as saying 'yes, there's a law against denying black people the right to bear arms, but in practice, we'll let the states get away with it.' It's just plain wrong either way you look at it.

To me, a cop is nothing more than a civilian with powers to enforce just laws and protect people. The cop is no more or less special or privileged than any civilian.

The difference has to exist. Not all laws can be enforced with the same regularity, nor can all law be applied equally. It's called discretion, and its a critical component of the criminal justice system.

Cops have it.
Prosecutors have it.
Judges have it.

In a system built by, and ran by humans, discretion must exist.

Police officers have more power in this country than you or I. They are officers of the peace, and enforcers of law. They are "the thin blue line".

Your ideals are fine and dandy, but they are very much out of step with the real world.

as the real world exists right now, having it been accepted that cops, prosecutors, and judges are your betters and know whats best for you (yes, thats heavy sarcasm), you can deal with that. But i'm of the same mindset as the framers did when they believed in equal protection under the law. the law knows no difference between citizen and police. we are equal and must be held to the same standards.

Ah yes, because the "framers" lived in a time when everyone was equal (yes, thats heavy sarcasm).

Its a system that involves humans and discretion. Get used to it, it will never change.

I'm with SATS, but then again, I'm Canadian. This sort of debate, will lively and civil, as usual seems to have broken down into the "Well, I don't commit crime so I guess it's okay." versus "I don't commit crime either, but over my dead body, I don't trust Them (whoever They are)."
The following stats aren't accurate, just ballparking here, I admit it.
Isn't there some sort of 80-20 rule when it comes to lawbreakers. Sort of a 80% of the crimes are committed by 20% of the people.
Actually, isn't it even less of people committing the majority?
I'd like it if, after one is convicted, then your DNA is entered on a database and run against outstanding crimes when DNA was found. Then again, your hair could have fallen out on the bus (with DNA on it's tip) and landed on a serial killer. That's why I think one shouldn't be convicted on DNA alone.
Great thing you guys have there, that Constitution. Serious, one of the best documents ever written.
The framers were brilliant. So brilliant, in fact, that I'm sure many of them (certainly Jefferson) would be dismayed at the number of guns in everyone's hands, what said guns can do, etc....
I don't think it was meant to be a dead document. It probably needs an overhaul for the 21st century.
I just don't anyone you got that I would trust with a grocery list.
All that being said, I think it's a natural progression from fingerprints to DNA. Far, far better science wise.

Perhaps unlike fingerprints, DNA can tell alot more about a person--and thus may fall under the principle of privacy? Apparently there's some precedent, where a famous judge cobbled together some constitutional principles and came up with a constitutional right to privacy.

I think the question will more likely be, would DNA collection amount to unreasonable search and seizure? Does a person have the right to privacy against people having DNA knowledge of them?

DNA, like finger prints are probably great indicators that an individual has been at a crime scene. However, they carry the excess baggage of medical information.

Perhaps in RFLP or whatever chain reactions they use these days to index DNA signatures doesn't reveal anything about a person's health.

However, unlike finger prints too, DNA can be planted much easier....

Just some thoughts. Sorry for the rant.

I myself don't see the big deal. It's the same as finger printing. Is having your finger prints taken an invasion of privacy? Nope, so niether is this. Hell, they finger print babies don't they? Every person in the country has a file started as soon as they are born. It's part of being in the system.

I think every individual's DNA should be taken and added to a centralized database. And it would be great if it is used an the unique identity too.

In which it states resisting even unlawful arrest by a police officer with deadly force is manslaughter (analogous to being in a fist-fight, and killing someone). If the arrest is lawful, it is murder.

And if the police had reason to think you where going to attempt to manslaughter them, I believe they can shoot and kill you with no serious repercussions.

if i'm subject to a lawful arrest, why would I resist? i'm talking about UNLAWFUL arrests.

As far as deadly force with no repercussions, i'm guessing that you're just mighty fine with government agents having the authority to kill people?

No, I'm describing the situation today?

A police officer walks up to you, and says "I'm here to arrest you".

You think the arrest isn't lawful -- so you resist arrest. If you attempt to seriously resist (pull a gun -- remember, "over my dead body"), the police officer takes this as a threat, and shoots you.

Suppose the police officer has the events on camera -- we have a cop saying "you are under arrest", you pull a gun, he shoots you. Even if you where not guilty of anything before that point, do you really honestly think the police officer will be prosecuted for killing you?

Meanwhile, that cited case makes it very clear that under common law, if you do shoot a police officer who is attempting to arrest you without the law on the police officer's side, you are still guilty of manslaughter.

So, I repeat my original comment to a particular poster: if you won't give DNA 'over your dead body', the only way to do this practically is to resist arrest if any police officer attempts to arrest you for any reason whatsoever.

Is this seriously your plan, and if so, do you think it is a good idea to post that plan on the internet?