- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,380
- Reaction score
- 10,655
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Sorry, should have said without warrant. Currently mail, email...even blood samples require warrants.Uh, the article headline was "police can collect DNA from arrestees....." So as I was saying, yeah people who are arrested should be able to have their DNA swabbed just like they are fingerprinted and photographed.
i agree. i'd probably support it if it were post-conviction, but anyone can be arrested for anything. it's a warrantless search.
The police already have pretty good access to your DNA.
They can go through your trash to find something with your hair or saliva on it. Similarly, they can hand you a cup of water during an interrogation, and get your DNA off the cup. Or, in one famous case, Seattle PD tricked a suspect into mailing them a letter that he sealed with his saliva. In these cases, you are abandoning property or an object that happens to have your DNA on it.
Well, it is a complete dissembling of protections of privacy, without arrest the govt can collect the most private part of an individual.
I really don't see why they couldn't. Are they allowed to keep fingerprints of people who've been arrested and later had the charges dropped? If they are, the same kind of framework would also be admisible here.
And I say, "good." *shrug*
Where can I volunteer mine?
Sorry, should have said without warrant. Currently mail, email...even blood samples require warrants.
I just am astounded that a so called libertarian favors warrantless searches.
I really don't understand your position. You seem to be only interested in helping the state, but the constitution is not about helping the state, but the people.
Well, it is a complete dissembling of protections of privacy, without arrest the govt can collect the most private part of an individual.
"The Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion"I don't consider plucking a piece of hair or swabbing a tongue a warrentless search. Its not different then taking fingerprints imho.
I lean libertarian, doesn't mean I submit to ideology for every little detail along the way.
I am interested in getting criminals off the street. I was completely unaware that was not in the best interests of "the people."
Yes, I expected that argument since that was pretty much the same crappy logic used in the opinion while admitting what they were doing was wrong. The DNA of people is their property, so the government requires a warrant to get that information and I'm sorry, but I'm more interested in the rights of people, than helping the government prosecute people.
You do realize I corrected myself already....oh..no, you have not.You do realize that the ruling pertains to people who have already been arrested. Right?
You could make the same argument about fingerprints, couldn't you?
Yes, so?
What's the point of taking a DNA sample after someone is convicted?
Would you argue the same point about finger prints?
I'm not seeing a similar outrage over that practice...
the point is that obtaining DNA is a search, and now it's a search which doesn't require a warrant.
it's not entirely analogous to fingerprints. DNA contains much more private data than a fingerprint.
You do realize I corrected myself already....oh..no, you have not.
Do you realize this is why I rarely respond to you?
Who said I'm not outraged about it? It has however been around a long time and it's hard to get people to fight against things that have been established for a great deal of time.
I'll ask you the same question as another poster, What sinister things do you think will be done with the information?
the point is that obtaining DNA is a search, and now it's a search which doesn't require a warrant.
it's not entirely analogous to fingerprints. DNA contains much more private data than a fingerprint.
Why is an answer that question needed? They are barred from such actions not due to the harm of the act, but due to the nature of the act.
I'll ask you the same question as another poster, What sinister things do you think will be done with the information?
Like what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?