cvfd1399 0 #1 April 22, 2004 Ok here in Louisiana after the rash of serial killings(7 I think) DNA was the main evidence in the capture, and probable conviction of Derek Todd Lee. During the hunt for him the state started DNA swabbing every felony that came in to the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. Since that time over 30 cases(rapes ect.) have been cleared due to the DNA database that is being compiled. So the state has started swabbing for every felony, and misdemeanors by a case by case basis. The rule is you get arrested and come into EBRPPrison with a felony you get swabbed, or in the event of a misdemeanor, and the judge orders you to, you MUST be swabbed or you DO NOT get out of jail under ANY condition. Either you swabb or you sit there and rot, and when you die we take it anyways. Ok here is the meat and potatoes of my story. Last night I was working central booking and a young male was brought in on a felony. So we print him and get all his paperwork in order and advised him that under law we has to swabbed you do you agree to be swabbed, and he said no. We then advised him further that if he does not get swabbed he will never leave the prision, and he said he does not want his DNA on file. He stated he has never committed any crime other than drug charges. This struck me odd, as to why wouldn't you want your DNA on file if you never committed or plan on committing a crime in the future that would be convictable by DNA. I feel that if your not a criminal why worry about having it on file. Me personally you can have my spit what ever helps the cause. So do any of you have problems with DNA on file, or giving up your DNA on request? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #2 April 22, 2004 I think a DNA sample is taken under scots law and screened against a database if you are charged with a violent crime. I'm not sure if you even need to have been convicted but I could be wrong. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpergirl 0 #3 April 22, 2004 I would be more than happy to give my DNA. In fact, if I thought it would help, I would go give it right now just in case something happened to me later - like if I were to be kidnapped or something. Just my $0.02 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #4 April 22, 2004 Aside from the possibility of mistakes or intentional fraud by the authorities, there is considerable reason to not want to be in a DNA bank. Insurers, employers, and scifi writers are already gearing up to discriminate based on your genetic profile. Gattaca is the well made movie from the late 90s on the worst case scenario. Mind you we barely understand what we're looking at yet, but are asserting correlations of traits to markers in the DNA. On the criminal front, juries are generally very trusting of the science and the "7 million to 1" odds that this must be evidence. But it is really true? I read in the last year or so that finger printing has never actually been established as truly individual and we just take it on faith. Given that Americans enjoy a right to privacy, that should lead us to treat DNA sampling the way we do other searches: the requirement for probable cause. That means cops don't pull over every black man on the street and ask for a sample because a black rapist exists in the city. Convicted criminals, otoh, are fair game. I don't know about criminal suspects - I guess with judicial review - but it seems open to abuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #5 April 22, 2004 Well, anyone in the US Armed Forces has already given up their DNA for a database, purportedly for use in Search & Recovery identifying remains... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #6 April 22, 2004 No.... Would you let someone search your house for no reason? If you're not a criminal, what do you have to be worried about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cvfd1399 0 #7 April 22, 2004 QuoteInsurers, employers, and scifi writers are already gearing up to discriminate based on your genetic profile. Gattaca is the well made movie from the late 90s on the worst case scenario You think insurance companies and employers are going to spend the MAJOR bucks to test someone just to disqualify them for something? Want would they be looking for? I hear that line alot, but no one ever gives me a good answer on what they would look for or find justifing that cost. Spend a couple thousand to disqualify you for genetic obesity, high blood pressure or what. What could an employer gain by doing testing ? I agree about the expectation of privacy, and not going around and swabbing every person on the street. I think it is a good idea to test criminals upon booking. I was scaning the books and saw for the first 50 people that was brought in 49 of them had been to our prison. Can you say repeat offenders! As far as the finger print thing goes, AFIS the finger printing system hasn't given us any troubles. When you put them on the machine it scans hits for ailises, which we can use to cross check for warrants before we release them. It takes their picture, and even has a place where you take pictures of all their tatoos and scars. That way incase of a rape, and the woman noticed a certian tatoos on the man, it gives you something more to work with. Before we release them we verify their identity through the machine by placing both thumbs on the scanner. It comes back who they are and all their info just off of a fingerprint nothing else, it then tells us if they are free to go or on hold for another reason. It even gives you the "fingerprint score" if the score is low enough, we verify them manually. They system rocks. If we did not have it many people would walk out of there after giving us fake names which would not turn up a warrant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #8 April 22, 2004 Heck, even the taking of fingerprints is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The issue here is that, in the can, it may constitute an administrative seizure. The dude was arrested for something. Therefore, probable cause for detention exists, and the seizure that would exist for even fingerprints is outweighed by the need to identify. A warrant would be needed for something invasive, like collecting blood. Here, a spit swab may fall somewhere in between the two. Still, in an administrative search, it would be probably be reasonable, especially if done to everybody. Where it sure as hell would not be kosher is in the setting where a cop walks up to you on the street and does them. Think about it - cops don't just ask for fingerprints. Nor should they be allowed to with DNA. Just think of DNA like fingerprints and it should make sense. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cvfd1399 0 #9 April 22, 2004 CVFD-->QuoteI agree about the expectation of privacy, and not going around and swabbing every person on the street. Yes I agree, only use the technology on known offenders, and if your not a criminal why worry about having it on file. I still haven't decided on all the angles yet. One good side to testing everyone like stated above, is in recovery efforts in kidnapping, or disasters. I really like the idea of genetic testing before two peope have kids. It can identify if your two sets of genes will conflict and possible cause a child with a deformity, disease, ect. They can even put you on meds to counteract that and have a healthy baby. I am thinking of getting this done before me and my wife have children. I would take care of a child either way, but why bring a child into this world KNOWING that he/she will lead that life. I do not agree with altering the gender, hair, eyes, body that is not what it should be used only for health not cosmetic reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #10 April 22, 2004 Had to in the Army. Sucks. I would be totally against it for anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cvfd1399 0 #11 April 22, 2004 Aww definatly, us guys were discussing how long it would take before a case was brought against the office on the actual legal right to swabb. It is in the law, so we think we are covered to a small extent, but you know they go for bigger deepr pockets. In the serial killer case here, the defence is focusing on how the DNA evidence was collected, it seems that the agency that found him and swabbed Lee had a suopena, not a warant, and some of the info was not exactly right. They are going to work that angle. Every lawyer we talked to still says that the judge will allow it based on the amount of other evidence. Also that the officers acting on good faith and the fact the they were so close on his tail that even without the DNA he was about to be caught anyways. They figure the DNA is just iceing on the cake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveNFlorida 0 #12 April 22, 2004 Personally, I would not want my DNA taken. I am not a criminal... but maybe I will be one day, hell, i'd like the option! In all seriousness, though, I think that is just too personal and I wouldn't want my fingerprints taken, either, if I could help it (although, not much I can do now, since I have been detained as a juvinille). If you are a known offender of a specific type of crime (rape, assault, murder) than I think that it is a good idea, otherwise not necessary or justified imo. Plus, if it is really thousands of dollars to do these tests, who the hell is paying for it? I think they need to be more selective about who they sample for that amount of money! Not everyone who is detained should be candidates for this, imo. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #13 April 22, 2004 Absolutely NOT! Again, It's an invasion of privacy and should not be allowed. Peas~ Lindsey-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 April 22, 2004 QuoteYou think insurance companies and employers are going to spend the MAJOR bucks to test someone just to disqualify them for something? Want would they be looking for? I hear that line alot, but no one ever gives me a good answer on what they would look for or find justifing that cost. Spend a couple thousand to disqualify you for genetic obesity, high blood pressure or what. What could an employer gain by doing testing ? Insurers absolutely would like to do testing, the cost of which can vary and will only decrease with time. Heart disease and cancer costs a lot of money to treat. Alzheimer's means tons of money in long term care. They can easily argue that being more succeptible should mean paying more. The problem is of course 1 in a million versus an estimated 10 in a million is weak science. Employers are most likely to scan to tendencies towards substance abuse...it's hard to keep up with all the bad traits that now supposedly have a genetic basis. It often seems like a replacement for personal responsibility. More the reason not to allow screening based on it. It has the potential to allow the same sort of discrimination we have/had over ethnicity or gender. Quote As far as the finger print thing goes, AFIS the finger printing system hasn't given us any troubles. The only problem with fingerprinting is that it's never really been proven in a scientic manner. We believe it to be a unique identifier, but is it true? The specter of losing the ability to use this evidence in court was presented. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Luv2Fall 0 #15 April 23, 2004 QuoteHad to in the Army. Sucks. I would be totally against it for anyone else. Same here my friend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #16 April 23, 2004 It seems a clear violation of the 5th Amendment to me. The State is getting more intrusive every day. When is it going to stop?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #17 April 23, 2004 You weren't clear in your original post (to me at least). Are they swabbing everyone convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, or is it for anyone arrested for those crimes? Maybe Louisiana is different, but my understanding is that you don't go to a prison after an arrest, you sit in a jail.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RoadRash 0 #18 April 23, 2004 QuoteYou weren't clear in your original post (to me at least). Are they swabbing everyone convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, or is it for anyone arrested for those crimes? Maybe Louisiana is different, but my understanding is that you don't go to a prison after an arrest, you sit in a jail. That's actually the same question I have...Please clarify...thanks!~R+R...P.S. I was born in East Baton Rouge Parish...and a good portion of my family lives there...where do you work?~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #19 April 23, 2004 I don't think it matters if you've been convicted of a crime or not. Being convicted of a crime does not strip you of all rights. Peace~ Lindsey QuoteYou weren't clear in your original post (to me at least). Are they swabbing everyone convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, or is it for anyone arrested for those crimes? Maybe Louisiana is different, but my understanding is that you don't go to a prison after an arrest, you sit in a jail.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #20 April 23, 2004 Quote It seems a clear violation of the 5th Amendment to me. Violation of the 5th Amendment? Where? You may mean the part about "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." It is well-settled that the 5th Amendment, in regards to self-incrimination, applies only to self-incrimination regarding testimony. DNA cannot speak and therefore is not testimonial in nature. As the 5th Amendment is applied, DNA is no different from fingerprints. Under your logic, a perp would not be allowed to be put into a lineup, since the witness could identify him by appearance, and thus be "self-incriminating." The 4th Amendment deals with this stuff. The 5th Amendment deals with other protections. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cvfd1399 0 #21 April 23, 2004 My bad, it is called the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. It holds 1400 males and 350 females. It is a jail and a prison. Sorry I forgot to point that out. They will hold you there for small stuff like 30 days ect, and if it is a more serious crime, up to like a year then they process you over to a full time prison such as Angola State Pen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cvfd1399 0 #22 April 23, 2004 Every felony is swabbed, and ever misdeameanor is brought up to a judge for him to make a decision on. Let me make this clear in no way are we walking up and testing random people on the street, I also believe that is wrong. I will Pm ya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #23 April 23, 2004 Thanks for the clarification. Are they swabbing only people convicted of crimes, or anyone arrested and sent there? (maybe I'm not understanding, are arrestees sent there, or only convicts?) .witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cvfd1399 0 #24 April 23, 2004 The "jail" we will now call it serves the whole parish. When any law enforcement officer in the whole parish arrests someone based off of a previous warrant, or witnessed arrest they are brought to the one jail. At that time if they are brought in for a felony, they are immediately swabbed upon entering the central booking. If they are brought in on a misdemeanor, that they cannot bond out of they have to see a judge either by video or in person and he decides if their violation is worth a swabb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites damion75 0 #25 April 23, 2004 Isn't there some sort of DNA information on the chips in the new design of US passport? I am not 100% clear on this but I know that from October this year we (UK citizens) have to get a visa to travel to the US unless we have the new design of passport (which is not available in UK until July 05!) All I know about that passport is that it has a chip in it which hold some kind (so I was told) of DNA information to help ID us. Overall it means that the cost of trips to the US just went up by $100... But on the topic, this would mean that our (any foreigner) DNA information would be available to law enforcement, and ultimately abuses of the system in the US... (if I am right?)*************** Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #4 April 22, 2004 Aside from the possibility of mistakes or intentional fraud by the authorities, there is considerable reason to not want to be in a DNA bank. Insurers, employers, and scifi writers are already gearing up to discriminate based on your genetic profile. Gattaca is the well made movie from the late 90s on the worst case scenario. Mind you we barely understand what we're looking at yet, but are asserting correlations of traits to markers in the DNA. On the criminal front, juries are generally very trusting of the science and the "7 million to 1" odds that this must be evidence. But it is really true? I read in the last year or so that finger printing has never actually been established as truly individual and we just take it on faith. Given that Americans enjoy a right to privacy, that should lead us to treat DNA sampling the way we do other searches: the requirement for probable cause. That means cops don't pull over every black man on the street and ask for a sample because a black rapist exists in the city. Convicted criminals, otoh, are fair game. I don't know about criminal suspects - I guess with judicial review - but it seems open to abuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #5 April 22, 2004 Well, anyone in the US Armed Forces has already given up their DNA for a database, purportedly for use in Search & Recovery identifying remains... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 April 22, 2004 No.... Would you let someone search your house for no reason? If you're not a criminal, what do you have to be worried about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #7 April 22, 2004 QuoteInsurers, employers, and scifi writers are already gearing up to discriminate based on your genetic profile. Gattaca is the well made movie from the late 90s on the worst case scenario You think insurance companies and employers are going to spend the MAJOR bucks to test someone just to disqualify them for something? Want would they be looking for? I hear that line alot, but no one ever gives me a good answer on what they would look for or find justifing that cost. Spend a couple thousand to disqualify you for genetic obesity, high blood pressure or what. What could an employer gain by doing testing ? I agree about the expectation of privacy, and not going around and swabbing every person on the street. I think it is a good idea to test criminals upon booking. I was scaning the books and saw for the first 50 people that was brought in 49 of them had been to our prison. Can you say repeat offenders! As far as the finger print thing goes, AFIS the finger printing system hasn't given us any troubles. When you put them on the machine it scans hits for ailises, which we can use to cross check for warrants before we release them. It takes their picture, and even has a place where you take pictures of all their tatoos and scars. That way incase of a rape, and the woman noticed a certian tatoos on the man, it gives you something more to work with. Before we release them we verify their identity through the machine by placing both thumbs on the scanner. It comes back who they are and all their info just off of a fingerprint nothing else, it then tells us if they are free to go or on hold for another reason. It even gives you the "fingerprint score" if the score is low enough, we verify them manually. They system rocks. If we did not have it many people would walk out of there after giving us fake names which would not turn up a warrant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 April 22, 2004 Heck, even the taking of fingerprints is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The issue here is that, in the can, it may constitute an administrative seizure. The dude was arrested for something. Therefore, probable cause for detention exists, and the seizure that would exist for even fingerprints is outweighed by the need to identify. A warrant would be needed for something invasive, like collecting blood. Here, a spit swab may fall somewhere in between the two. Still, in an administrative search, it would be probably be reasonable, especially if done to everybody. Where it sure as hell would not be kosher is in the setting where a cop walks up to you on the street and does them. Think about it - cops don't just ask for fingerprints. Nor should they be allowed to with DNA. Just think of DNA like fingerprints and it should make sense. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #9 April 22, 2004 CVFD-->QuoteI agree about the expectation of privacy, and not going around and swabbing every person on the street. Yes I agree, only use the technology on known offenders, and if your not a criminal why worry about having it on file. I still haven't decided on all the angles yet. One good side to testing everyone like stated above, is in recovery efforts in kidnapping, or disasters. I really like the idea of genetic testing before two peope have kids. It can identify if your two sets of genes will conflict and possible cause a child with a deformity, disease, ect. They can even put you on meds to counteract that and have a healthy baby. I am thinking of getting this done before me and my wife have children. I would take care of a child either way, but why bring a child into this world KNOWING that he/she will lead that life. I do not agree with altering the gender, hair, eyes, body that is not what it should be used only for health not cosmetic reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #10 April 22, 2004 Had to in the Army. Sucks. I would be totally against it for anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #11 April 22, 2004 Aww definatly, us guys were discussing how long it would take before a case was brought against the office on the actual legal right to swabb. It is in the law, so we think we are covered to a small extent, but you know they go for bigger deepr pockets. In the serial killer case here, the defence is focusing on how the DNA evidence was collected, it seems that the agency that found him and swabbed Lee had a suopena, not a warant, and some of the info was not exactly right. They are going to work that angle. Every lawyer we talked to still says that the judge will allow it based on the amount of other evidence. Also that the officers acting on good faith and the fact the they were so close on his tail that even without the DNA he was about to be caught anyways. They figure the DNA is just iceing on the cake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #12 April 22, 2004 Personally, I would not want my DNA taken. I am not a criminal... but maybe I will be one day, hell, i'd like the option! In all seriousness, though, I think that is just too personal and I wouldn't want my fingerprints taken, either, if I could help it (although, not much I can do now, since I have been detained as a juvinille). If you are a known offender of a specific type of crime (rape, assault, murder) than I think that it is a good idea, otherwise not necessary or justified imo. Plus, if it is really thousands of dollars to do these tests, who the hell is paying for it? I think they need to be more selective about who they sample for that amount of money! Not everyone who is detained should be candidates for this, imo. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #13 April 22, 2004 Absolutely NOT! Again, It's an invasion of privacy and should not be allowed. Peas~ Lindsey-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 April 22, 2004 QuoteYou think insurance companies and employers are going to spend the MAJOR bucks to test someone just to disqualify them for something? Want would they be looking for? I hear that line alot, but no one ever gives me a good answer on what they would look for or find justifing that cost. Spend a couple thousand to disqualify you for genetic obesity, high blood pressure or what. What could an employer gain by doing testing ? Insurers absolutely would like to do testing, the cost of which can vary and will only decrease with time. Heart disease and cancer costs a lot of money to treat. Alzheimer's means tons of money in long term care. They can easily argue that being more succeptible should mean paying more. The problem is of course 1 in a million versus an estimated 10 in a million is weak science. Employers are most likely to scan to tendencies towards substance abuse...it's hard to keep up with all the bad traits that now supposedly have a genetic basis. It often seems like a replacement for personal responsibility. More the reason not to allow screening based on it. It has the potential to allow the same sort of discrimination we have/had over ethnicity or gender. Quote As far as the finger print thing goes, AFIS the finger printing system hasn't given us any troubles. The only problem with fingerprinting is that it's never really been proven in a scientic manner. We believe it to be a unique identifier, but is it true? The specter of losing the ability to use this evidence in court was presented. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luv2Fall 0 #15 April 23, 2004 QuoteHad to in the Army. Sucks. I would be totally against it for anyone else. Same here my friend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #16 April 23, 2004 It seems a clear violation of the 5th Amendment to me. The State is getting more intrusive every day. When is it going to stop?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #17 April 23, 2004 You weren't clear in your original post (to me at least). Are they swabbing everyone convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, or is it for anyone arrested for those crimes? Maybe Louisiana is different, but my understanding is that you don't go to a prison after an arrest, you sit in a jail.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadRash 0 #18 April 23, 2004 QuoteYou weren't clear in your original post (to me at least). Are they swabbing everyone convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, or is it for anyone arrested for those crimes? Maybe Louisiana is different, but my understanding is that you don't go to a prison after an arrest, you sit in a jail. That's actually the same question I have...Please clarify...thanks!~R+R...P.S. I was born in East Baton Rouge Parish...and a good portion of my family lives there...where do you work?~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #19 April 23, 2004 I don't think it matters if you've been convicted of a crime or not. Being convicted of a crime does not strip you of all rights. Peace~ Lindsey QuoteYou weren't clear in your original post (to me at least). Are they swabbing everyone convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, or is it for anyone arrested for those crimes? Maybe Louisiana is different, but my understanding is that you don't go to a prison after an arrest, you sit in a jail.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 April 23, 2004 Quote It seems a clear violation of the 5th Amendment to me. Violation of the 5th Amendment? Where? You may mean the part about "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." It is well-settled that the 5th Amendment, in regards to self-incrimination, applies only to self-incrimination regarding testimony. DNA cannot speak and therefore is not testimonial in nature. As the 5th Amendment is applied, DNA is no different from fingerprints. Under your logic, a perp would not be allowed to be put into a lineup, since the witness could identify him by appearance, and thus be "self-incriminating." The 4th Amendment deals with this stuff. The 5th Amendment deals with other protections. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #21 April 23, 2004 My bad, it is called the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. It holds 1400 males and 350 females. It is a jail and a prison. Sorry I forgot to point that out. They will hold you there for small stuff like 30 days ect, and if it is a more serious crime, up to like a year then they process you over to a full time prison such as Angola State Pen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #22 April 23, 2004 Every felony is swabbed, and ever misdeameanor is brought up to a judge for him to make a decision on. Let me make this clear in no way are we walking up and testing random people on the street, I also believe that is wrong. I will Pm ya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #23 April 23, 2004 Thanks for the clarification. Are they swabbing only people convicted of crimes, or anyone arrested and sent there? (maybe I'm not understanding, are arrestees sent there, or only convicts?) .witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #24 April 23, 2004 The "jail" we will now call it serves the whole parish. When any law enforcement officer in the whole parish arrests someone based off of a previous warrant, or witnessed arrest they are brought to the one jail. At that time if they are brought in for a felony, they are immediately swabbed upon entering the central booking. If they are brought in on a misdemeanor, that they cannot bond out of they have to see a judge either by video or in person and he decides if their violation is worth a swabb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
damion75 0 #25 April 23, 2004 Isn't there some sort of DNA information on the chips in the new design of US passport? I am not 100% clear on this but I know that from October this year we (UK citizens) have to get a visa to travel to the US unless we have the new design of passport (which is not available in UK until July 05!) All I know about that passport is that it has a chip in it which hold some kind (so I was told) of DNA information to help ID us. Overall it means that the cost of trips to the US just went up by $100... But on the topic, this would mean that our (any foreigner) DNA information would be available to law enforcement, and ultimately abuses of the system in the US... (if I am right?)*************** Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
