Sheriff Clarke Backs Taking DNA Upon Arrest
Not no. Hell no.
Wisconsin sheriffs should take suspects’ DNA when they’re booked into jail instead of waiting for prison officials to do so after conviction, authorities in Milwaukee said Monday.
It is both unconstitutional and unconscionable to take a person’s DNA - the very blueprint of their being - without due process.
BTW, a bill is being introduced to do this.
Wow. Just wow. When will the ration card program be implemented? So much that illegal search and seizure thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 2258 hrs
How is it any different than taking photos and fingerprints at time of booking?
Posted by Roland Melnick on September 22, 2009 at 0005 hrs
According to the recommended change in state law, if the accused person beats their case, they can petition to have their DNA removed from the database, and the state has 30 days to remove it. But since they’re changing the law because the state system is broken, how is the accused person supposed to trust that the state system will work for the removal of their DNA? This is a terrible idea, and I hope enough state legislators can see that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 0149 hrs
I have to agree with Roland here. How is it different?
I would say that if DNA is taken at booking, there should be a mechansim where a new DNA sample is taken and re-checked.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 0616 hrs
Mistyped early in the morning. I meant that if someone is accused of a crime with evidence from an old sample, there must be a mechanism for a re-check.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 0618 hrs
Gotta go with Roland here.
Remember that DNA also proves innocence…
Posted by dad29 on September 22, 2009 at 0855 hrs
Taking your DNA serves no purpose at that point, other than to gather evidence for crimes you have not been charged with. If DNA evidence is needed for the case in question it should be gathered at that time. Just gathering the data, because they can, is a lot like an illegal search. It would be like being pulled over for drunk driving, and having them go through your house and computer looking for evidence you had done something else wrong.
The difference between that and fingerprints, is the government can at least make some kind of case that finger prints are needed for identification. DNA is only of use to incriminate you. Kind of blows up that “presumed innocent” concept.
And I would never trust government to follow through on their word and destroy evidence for those found innocent. Half on a general distrust of government, half because I don’t think them competent enough to do even that well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 0905 hrs
If you guys look closely at how it is worded, if you are not convicted, you have to petition the state to have your DNA removed. It also says that they have 30 days to remove it. I guess I don’t trust the government to work that efficiently and one ha to wonder how much they would charge for this service. My final question is this, why is DNA needed for a simple misdemenor offense say like disorderly conduct?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 0946 hrs
Why worry? They’ll just lose it after they take it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1115 hrs
Why should an acquitted person have to explicitly petition for the removal of the data? IT should be a responsibility of the state to remove that information.
I am with Owen on this one.
As far as DNA proving innocence too, I agree with that, but if I am a suspect then the state can get the blessing from a judge and demand a specimen from myself and then exonerate myself.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on September 22, 2009 at 1229 hrs
We ALL know how freedom is taken away…
Little bit by little bit.
Government never goes for the whole enchilada (well Obama being the exception, but thats proving his demise)
I think I can support 100% collecting DNA from people who are convicted of REAL crimes.
But innocent until proven guilty. I don’t support collecting it from people who are arrested and I SURE AS HELL don’t trust the government to destroy it. NOR do I trust that politicians won’t turn around and once they get the “innocent collection” in place, a year or two down the road some enterprising politician won’t pull the Gee Wiz “Hey, as long as we collect it, lets just put it in a database in case the person commits a crime in the future”
No thanks. Slippery slope.
And I’m questioning whats the real pressing issue for this? Whats the problem with collecting after conviction? What makes collecting at arrest a “better” method?
I understand a great deal of it is missing or whatever, but how is the process going to be so much more ‘foolproof’ at the arrest level than the conviction level?
This proposal reeks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1254 hrs
Taking your DNA serves no purpose at that point, other than to gather evidence for crimes you have not been charged with.
I agree with the first half of your sentence. One contrast between prints and DNA is that prints are often used to identify or confirm the identity of persons arrested. DNA serves no such purpose at the current level of technology.
But there is no difference between them when it comes to gathering “evidence for crimes you have not been charged with.”
Consider this: a man with no fingerprint record (arrest or otherwise) breaks into a home and steals valuables leaving prints all over the inside of said home. Police investigate, recover several prints but find no match when those prints are compared to the known database. The “John Doe” prints are kept on file and checked against new bookings. A year later, the man is arrested and his prints are taken at that time. Police then connect him to the crime with the fingerprint match. This scenario happens all the time. Score one for the good guys, right?
Now in this example, substitute DNA where you see “fingerprint” or “prints.” What’s the difference?
Curt, I’m open to further debate on the illegal search aspect of your argument, but you haven’t sold me on it. I don’t buy your analogy of taking a DNA sample being the same as going and doing a warrantless search of a drunk driver’s home. That’s a bit too apples and oranges.
Posted by Roland Melnick on September 22, 2009 at 1439 hrs
@brainstew…you said:
...why is DNA needed for a simple misdemenor offense say like disorderly conduct?
It’s not. I’m sure someone could envision some scenario where someone engaging in disorderly conduct would leave their DNA at the scene of the crime, but it’s hard for me to come up with a realistic one. But, even if you could…the police would not waste the resources nor do the crime labs have the time and resources to waste on such a low level crime. Aside from the colossal mismanagement of the DNA database we’ve been reading about recently, there was a substantial backlog in running comparative analyses for serious felony cases already.
As for some of the other comments claiming that this is just another example of the government taking away more of our freedoms…I just don’t see it. A police officer swabbing the inside of your mouth with a Q-tip is what it would amount to, at least by current standards and practices. I don’t see how that, by itself, threatens anyone’s freedom. As dad29 points out, DNA has also served to exonerate the innocent as well.
Posted by Roland Melnick on September 22, 2009 at 1455 hrs
Roland, maybe I am missing something here, but if I am not mistaken the proposal calls for collection for all arrests. They collect your DNA while being booked. Now you are found not guilty or even better, charges are dropped. Now you have to go through a potentially long process to have your DNA wiped out of the database and trust the government actually gets rid of it. DNA can be pretty damning evidence and it can also be a lot easier to plant someine else’s DNA at a crime scene, right? I guess I think the proposal in its current form is too intrusive. I get arrested for disorderly conduct for looking at someone funny and then I have to submit my DNA without being formally charged, I have a problem with that. Remember, in some places in Wisconsin, you can be arrested for disorderly conduct for practicing open carry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1516 hrs
It is a violation of your rights. This is much more analogous to taking a blood sample - which requires a court order or a search warrant. They are physically entering your body to collect a sample. If the 4th amendment means anything it must mean that you have a right to keep your own body inviolate until the state demonstrates a need to enter it. Simply arresting you is not enough. On the other hand, a finger print is an external marker much like a photograph. The state does not have to enter you body to obtain it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1525 hrs
Joe…I respect your argument, but I see a difference between a cotton swab and a needle to withdraw blood (less intimidating and no pain from the needlestick). If there were a method of external DNA collection, like swabbing one’s scalp with a swab…would you still be opposed?
brainstew…I think I misunderstood your question. You seem to be saying that DNA shouldn’t be collected on minor arrests…I thought you were questioning the usefulness of DNA in minor cases. I don’t see the point in differentiating between the type of arrest that would lead to a sample being taken at booking.
As for your distrust of police (i.e. planting DNA), I don’t think it’s as easy as you think to “plant” DNA evidence. You’d have to do it with the suspect in hand while the crime scene is still being processed. Such a gross level of corruption would have nothing to do with the proposed change in DNA collection procedures, since, if such a bad cop were so inclined, he or she could do that now.
Currently, as for the samples taken, once a DNA profile is derived from the sample, the physical sample is discarded. The profile is a computerized code of extreme complexity. It’s that profile that stays on record. You can’t plant a code.
Posted by Roland Melnick on September 22, 2009 at 1628 hrs
Roland, I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn’t talking about police planting DNA. Here is a hypothetical. You get arrested for disorderly conduct and submitbyour DNA. You are found not guilty, and you have problems petitioning the government to have your sample removed from the database. Now someone does something like burglarizes a home, but to keep the police on a wild goose chase, takes something with your DNA and plants it the crime scene. Your DNA is now there and in the state database because you were arrested for a minor violation. See where I am going with this? There is no need to collect DNA for a minor arrest. For something like murder or sexual assault, I can see where collecting DNA is needed, but to collect for something like 2nd offense DUI is not needed and really serves no purpose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1730 hrs
I’m sorry, but all of the arguments against sound like paranoia to me. First, invasion of your body? OK, just spit into a cup. Cops or perps planting DNA? Most cops have a lot better things to do and most perps don’t plan that far ahead. Besides, how would it look if DNA matched and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you were somewhere else? The gov’t not destroying the profile in a timely manor, leading to evidence against you? I’m tempted to say “good, another bad guy off the streets”, but really, how fast could an even mediocre ambulance chaser get that thrown out? It is not significantly different than a photo or fingerprint. Unconnstitutional? 10 or 15 other states and the feds would disagree.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1907 hrs
Yeah, all the arguments against this are paranoia… Throughout history we’ve seen nothing but examples of how unchecked government uses that power to look out for the best interest of the people. Afterall, the rights of the individual are less important than the greater good of society as a whole… The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few… right?... Anybody?...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2009 at 0315 hrs
Swabbing a Q-tip on the inside of your mouth when you get booked into jail…having that swab go to the crime lab…having a computerized profile of that DNA sample put on file as an identifier…destroying the actual sample….comparing said profile to the database of evidentiary samples…how is that a great intrusion into that person’s life?
brainstew…I now understand what you’re saying. I don’t think it’s reasonable to scrap this idea based on the low probability of some criminal mastermind effectively planting someone’s DNA at the scene of the crime.
That being said…
I do think it’s a bad idea to try and implement this right now. Between the backlog that already existed and the game of catch-up the State now has to play with all the missing samples…the operational situation will only get worse by adding one for everybody arrested.The current system must first be fixed. Pardon my language, but this story about the 12,000 missing samples is the mother of all fuckups. The State needs to demonstrate they can handle what they’re already doing before we go quadrupling (or more) their workload.
Posted by Roland Melnick on September 23, 2009 at 1659 hrs
Roland, that is one thing that you and I can agree on. Fix the smaller peoblem before trying to tackle a much larger one. That is one of my basic arguements against government run health care. They need to fix what they have going on first.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2009 at 1711 hrs
Tooth, I hate to point out the obvious, but your whole post sounds like more paranoia. Unchecked government? Only if you allow it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2009 at 1944 hrs
I’m fine with a little paranoia when it comes to government. There is absolutely no good reason to collect this data. It isn’t for ID purposes. The state is collecting information that can be used against you for something unrelated to the crime you are being charged with. And just as scarily, once they have this pool of data, why stop at arrests, why not collect it for flu shots, or at birth. And why not use it to put further controls around your life.
There is little to be gained by unfettered trust in government, and much to lose. So a little paranoia is a darn good thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2009 at 2022 hrs
I might be a little paranoid, but somehow I can’t always believe that government bureaucracy is looking out for us as an individuals. If the DNA sample will be useful for the case that the inmate is booked in on, it can be obtained… with a warrant. Eliminating the due process of obtaining it, just to see what we can find is wrong. Law Enforcement can’t arrest you and search your car or home, just to see if they can find something else illegal, unless they can justify it legally on their end under the fourth amendment. This is definitely a slippery slope. And one that I’d really rather not start down. Curt, I agree with you, I think a whole database collection, starting at birth is the next logical step. How often does government get it’s foot in the door on something and then just stop and be happy with what they have?... Especially when they can sway people by dangling the “it will make you safer” carrot in front of them. Benjamin Franklin, a smart man, said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I personally believe that this is DNA collection bill is a step in the wrong direction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2009 at 0113 hrs
La ringrazio per una spiegazione. Non sapevo che.
Posted by BARABARA - bronchitis on September 29, 2009 at 0738 hrs
Mi dispiace, ma, a mio parere, si fanno errori. Sono in grado di provarlo. Scrivere a me in PM, discuterne.
Posted by BAMBI - viral bronchitis on September 29, 2009 at 0829 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:23 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).