The 9th is at it again... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 10-02-2003, 11:59 PM

Is this court composed of members that reside on the planet Earth???

They're CONVICTED FELONS. That alone should give suspicion!

But even if it doesn't, why then are FINGERPRINTS allowed to be compared?

There is no reasonable suspicion there either and I'm POSITIVE that the prisoners did not give their finger print samples willingly.

Or for that matter, why are prisons allowed to strip search inmates without suspicion?

I swear, this is just one more nail in the coffin of Common Sense.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.ntdaily.com/vnews/display.../3f7d0507b1d6f

9th District court rules on DNA

by Sampath Malladi
October 03, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a move that could impact hundreds of criminal cases, a three-year-old law that requires federal prisoners and parolees to provide DNA samples for an FBI database was declared unconstitutional Thursday by a federal appeals court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring blood samples for the database amounts to an illegal invasion of privacy because they are taken without legal suspicion.

The court said that is a violation of inmates' Fourth-Amendment rights against illegal searches.

Blood samples taken from federal prisoners have been used to convict hundreds of people.

seretogis · 10-03-2003, 12:48 AM

They've outdone themselves this time.

Bill O'Rights · 10-03-2003, 03:58 AM

Hmmm...I dunno how I feel about that. I'm gonna hafta ponder that one for awhile. 'scuse please.

The_Dude · 10-03-2003, 06:33 AM

Come to think of it, I kinda agree with them.

Yes, I want a more secure atmosphere, but I'm not willing to give up liberties for the added security.

This may seem good on the outside, but if they start with this, they'll move on to something higher.

So, you've commited a crime and your dna should be tracked after you did your sentence?

bonbonbox · 10-03-2003, 06:58 AM

In the mind of the public a fingerprint is a positive ID. We've seen Columbo and Kojak, whatever city CSI and America's Most Wanted. Facts are though that the fingerprint is not a positive ID. There are several standards used in different states. There is some solid science. We live, we learn. Now we got DNA. Wooooo. Heavy science. Described by words you never heard before. It's new, improved. The public convicted O.J. at the mere mention of DNA. Having a DNA data base is scary, especially one obtained in this way. I too am not willing to give up liberty for professed security, much the same way I am against the no call list.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-03-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring blood samples for the database amounts to an illegal invasion of privacy because they are taken without legal suspicion.

The court said that is a violation of inmates' Fourth-Amendment rights against illegal searches.

Blood samples taken from federal prisoners have been used to convict hundreds of people. [/B]

That basically sums it up right there. Another 3 judge panel from the most Liberal group of people EVER. I assume this will get over turned like 3/4's of their decisions. I suppose this is what happens when you get judges more interested in making policy rather then interpreting the constitution.

chavos · 10-03-2003, 11:09 AM

they must really want to be overturned. inmates and parolees by definition have been deprived of many of their rights. keeping information on known criminals is a well established practice, and one that the consitution was surely not meant to prevent. i've agreed with them before, but i think they've lost it a bit here.

seretogis · 10-03-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
Come to think of it, I kinda agree with them.

Are you sure about that?

Nizzle · 10-03-2003, 12:54 PM

I have mixed feelings about this. For the most part I think it's absurd to conceptually separate fingerprints from DNA samples. Most agree that maintaining a fingerprint database is important; DNA matching is a logical advancement. I think having DNA samples of violent or sexual felons is a useful and important service.

But the growing trend in stripping away our civil liberties to strengthen law enforcement is becoming more and more worrisome every day. It surprises me that this is a partisan issue. Aren't conservatives traditionally suspicious of strong, meddlesome government?

I think it is this climate in which decisions like this are incubated. I don't think it's a good decision, but I understand the motivating force. I am not willing to forsake my liberties for the illusion of more safety. To the contrary, I believe that the more oppresive government becomes, the more crime and discontent will flourish.

10-02-2003, 11:59 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The 9th is at it again... Is this court composed of members that reside on the planet Earth??? They're CONVICTED FELONS. That alone should give suspicion! But even if it doesn't, why then are FINGERPRINTS allowed to be compared? There is no reasonable suspicion there either and I'm POSITIVE that the prisoners did not give their finger print samples willingly. Or for that matter, why are prisons allowed to strip search inmates without suspicion? I swear, this is just one more nail in the coffin of Common Sense. ------------------------------------------------- http://www.ntdaily.com/vnews/display.../3f7d0507b1d6f 9th District court rules on DNA by Sampath Malladi October 03, 2003 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a move that could impact hundreds of criminal cases, a three-year-old law that requires federal prisoners and parolees to provide DNA samples for an FBI database was declared unconstitutional Thursday by a federal appeals court. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring blood samples for the database amounts to an illegal invasion of privacy because they are taken without legal suspicion. The court said that is a violation of inmates' Fourth-Amendment rights against illegal searches. Blood samples taken from federal prisoners have been used to convict hundreds of people. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-03-2003, 12:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	They've outdone themselves this time. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-03-2003, 03:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Hmmm...I dunno how I feel about that. I'm gonna hafta ponder that one for awhile. 'scuse please. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

10-03-2003, 06:33 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	Come to think of it, I kinda agree with them. Yes, I want a more secure atmosphere, but I'm not willing to give up liberties for the added security. This may seem good on the outside, but if they start with this, they'll move on to something higher. So, you've commited a crime and your dna should be tracked after you did your sentence? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

10-03-2003, 12:54 PM	#9 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	I have mixed feelings about this. For the most part I think it's absurd to conceptually separate fingerprints from DNA samples. Most agree that maintaining a fingerprint database is important; DNA matching is a logical advancement. I think having DNA samples of violent or sexual felons is a useful and important service. But the growing trend in stripping away our civil liberties to strengthen law enforcement is becoming more and more worrisome every day. It surprises me that this is a partisan issue. Aren't conservatives traditionally suspicious of strong, meddlesome government? I think it is this climate in which decisions like this are incubated. I don't think it's a good decision, but I understand the motivating force. I am not willing to forsake my liberties for the illusion of more safety. To the contrary, I believe that the more oppresive government becomes, the more crime and discontent will flourish. __________________ Nizzle Last edited by Nizzle; 10-03-2003 at 12:56 PM..

10-03-2003, 06:58 AM	#5 (permalink)
bonbonbox Banned	In the mind of the public a fingerprint is a positive ID. We've seen Columbo and Kojak, whatever city CSI and America's Most Wanted. Facts are though that the fingerprint is not a positive ID. There are several standards used in different states. There is some solid science. We live, we learn. Now we got DNA. Wooooo. Heavy science. Described by words you never heard before. It's new, improved. The public convicted O.J. at the mere mention of DNA. Having a DNA data base is scary, especially one obtained in this way. I too am not willing to give up liberty for professed security, much the same way I am against the no call list.

10-03-2003, 11:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	they must really want to be overturned. inmates and parolees by definition have been deprived of many of their rights. keeping information on known criminals is a well established practice, and one that the consitution was surely not meant to prevent. i've agreed with them before, but i think they've lost it a bit here.