0
GeorgiaDon

Agree/disagree with DNA ruling?

Recommended Posts

Although this topic has nothing to do with guns, evil muslims, or Obama, I think it raises interesting issues for discussion. The Supreme Court has ruled that police may collect a DNA sample from people who have been arrested but not yet convicted, and use it to search against databases from past unsolved crimes. The decision was 5-4, but with an usual mix in that the "4" included Scalia together with 3 "liberal" justices. Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority (as is often the case in these split decisions), but Breyer, also considered a liberal justice, joined with the majority.

I'll admit to feeling conflicted by this one.

On the one hand, if someone has been arrested for a crime, there is certainly probable cause to get a warrant to collect DNA in relation to that case. However the suspect is still technically innocent at that point, so searching databases to look for a match in other cases, where no evidence exists to suggest a connection, seems like a fishing expedition. Once the suspect has been tried, and if they are convicted of the original crime, then I have no problem with searching databases to see if a link can be made to unsolved crimes.

On the other hand, it can be (and was) argued that DNA is no different than fingerprints or photographs, and those are routinely used (and have been for a long time) to link suspects in one crime to other similar crimes. There is no question that DNA is a powerful technique for identifying people who were at the crime scene for some reason, though that in itself doesn't necessarily prove involvement in the crime. The court in this ruling seem to have come down on the side of the convenience and power of the technique to solve crimes, and decided that that outweighs privacy concerns.

Do y'all think the court got this one right? It's now the law of the land, so disagreeing is kind of moot, but still it seems an interesting topic for discussion. What's next? Collecting a DNA sample as a condition of getting a drivers license? Surely crimes would be easier to solve if everyone's DNA was on file?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read Scalia's dissent? Scalia nailed it. One can actually sense his fury with the majority. The dissent starts on p. 33.
[Url]www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf[/url]

Note: I always like to read the dissent first. Probably my inherent skepticism to see first others' opinions of why the decision was wrong. I'm like that in lots of ways.

I find the majority opinion to be persuasive in a "status quo" way. We never bothered to object to fingerprinting as a tool to solve crimes. I side with dissent here. Scalia's is just better reasoned. And with a certain degree of dickishness.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why not collect it (DNA info) on birth? In few decades times it would lead to having a lot of crimes be instantly solved.



That it what worries me. The government is building a DNA database and you don't even have to be arrested to be on it. Parents are being encouraged to DNA print their kids for potential kidnapping identification, and everyone in the military has to give a DNA sample. I don't believe there's a big conspiracy afoot, but evertually NOT having DNA on record will be the exception, rather than the norm. At that point, I can see a push to have everyone else tested. You know, for security.:|

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree with the decision. It guarantees a new vector for wrongful convictions, which seems to be exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended.

DNA matching is useful when comparing DNA found at a crime scene to DNA from a small pool of suspects. Using a large pool of DNA profiles to identify a suspect results in a much lower probability that a DNA match indicates guilt.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Total disagreement.



And on this we agree.

People don't like the idea of micro-stamping weapons. Some reason that it makes it too easy to collect spent brass and plant later at a crime scene.

Do you have any idea how much DNA you leave behind on every object you interact with?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Did you read Scalia's dissent? Scalia nailed it. One can actually sense his fury with the majority. The dissent starts on p. 33.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/...2pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf

Thanks for the link. I find my self in agreement with Scalia on this one.

I found this to be quite interesting (from pg 18): "All parties concede that it would have been entirely permissible, as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, for Maryland to take a sample of King’s DNA as a consequence of his conviction for second-degree assault. So the ironic result of the Court’s error is this: The only arrestees to whom the outcome here will ever make a difference are those who have been acquitted of the crime of arrest (so that their DNA could not have been taken
upon conviction). In other words, this Act manages to burden uniquely the sole group for whom the Fourth Amendment’s protections ought to be most jealously guarded: people who are innocent of the State’s accusations."

Lawrocket, do you hold fingerprints in the same category as DNA? Should law enforcement also no be able to use fingerprints from arrestees to compare to latent prints from crime scenes, until the owner of the fingerprint has been convicted of some other serious crime? Or should the (and DNA) not be useable even from convicts, unless there is other evidence to link that suspect to the crime? Of course that would mean that many crimes would go unsolved.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's really not too bad. the govt is keeping a database of dna. all we have to do is get the chinese to wipe it remotely. they can't seem to keep them out of anything. or maybe a job for anonymous?
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good point Quade that is why I also disagree with this ruling. DNA testing people that are already a suspect due to other evidence maybe but using DNA in a fishing expedition should be considered a warrantless search
You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. It's not being used to identify a person but to identify a DNA sample.

Scalia wrote this: "Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail."

I think it is very well stated.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]Lawrocket, do you hold fingerprints in the same category as DNA? Should law enforcement also no be able to use fingerprints from arrestees to compare to latent prints from crime scenes, until the owner of the fingerprint has been convicted of some other serious crime? Or should the (and DNA) not be useable even from convicts, unless there is other evidence to link that suspect to the crime? Of course that would mean that many crimes would go unsolved.



I don't know. I haven't thought about it. I'd just always assumed that there was something saying it cleared Constitutional scrutiny. I'm questioning that now, but I sure as hell haven't thought enough about it to give my opinion or even enough information to substantiate my belief.

For now, I'm punting.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade


And on this we agree.

People don't like the idea of micro-stamping weapons. Some reason that it makes it too easy to collect spent brass and plant later at a crime scene.

Do you have any idea how much DNA you leave behind on every object you interact with?



Microstamping problems go much further than that. No one has been able to show that it actually works at a level of accuracy required for the court. It's trivial to modify yourself. Ballistics on the slug has already been a dead cause. And forget about spreading other brass...just collect your own!

DNA is at least a big step up in repeatability and uniqueness. Interesting - I read a few years ago that fingerprints have not been proven (in a rigorous manner) to be unique. In spite of that, we already lost any battle on preventing those records for being kept for most people.

It's an odd day (to me) when Scalia is the voice of reason. Breyer is the surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't know. I haven't thought about it. I'd just always assumed that there was something saying it cleared Constitutional scrutiny. I'm questioning that now, but I sure as hell haven't thought enough about it to give my opinion or even enough information to substantiate my belief.



Can fingerprints be used to do anything other than uniquely identify a person? DNA contains boatloads of additional personal information that I don't think the government has a right to "seize" without at least a conviction.
Owned by Remi #?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

DNA contains boatloads of additional personal information that I don't think the government has a right to "seize" without at least a conviction.

Potentially, sure, but not the way DNA is currently processed for forensic purposes. A number of distinct molecular regions have been identified where the nucleotide sequence is quite variable. Say, for example, that there are 10 possible sequences at each of 20 sites in the genome. That yields 20 to the 10th power (~10,000,000,000,000) possible combinations of characters, many times the total population of the planet, so it is possible to identify the source of a DNA sample very precisely to a unique person (except in the case of identical twins). However, none of those variable regions come from regions of the DNA that actually encode proteins, so you couldn't predict anything about height, eye color, etc from that information. To do that you would need to actually sequence a large fraction of the genome, a process that is coming down in price but still runs about $10-20,000. Sequencing is the easy part, assembly and annotation (figuring out what is what) is the more labor- and cost-intensive part. Most phenotypic characters that might be used to create a picture of a suspect such as height, weight, or hair texture are influenced by many interacting genes and interact strongly with environment, so it would be impossible to translate a DNA sequence into an artist's sketch of a suspect. You could determine race and eye color, but I doubt many police agencies would care to (or be able to afford to) spend thousands of dollars to sequence someone's genome to get info they could get and record much more cheaply just by looking. Plus, I believe there are already laws on the books restricting law enforcement from collecting genetic information other than those limited markers required to match a sample to a source.

So personally I am not worried that the police will somehow use information about my risk of developing Alzheimer's or some other disease against me. I do dislike the idea of being required to participate in a genetic database when I have not been convicted of any crime. In my case it's more or less water under the bridge, though, as I have already been fingerprinted many times in connection to immigration to the US.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

I agree. It's not being used to identify a person but to identify a DNA sample.

Scalia wrote this: "Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail."

I think it is very well stated.



Agreed. Good outcome notwithstanding, the means are a couple among a thousand cuts.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

Did you read Scalia's dissent? Scalia nailed it. One can actually sense his fury with the majority. The dissent starts on p. 33.
[Url]www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf[/url]

Note: I always like to read the dissent first. Probably my inherent skepticism to see first others' opinions of why the decision was wrong. I'm like that in lots of ways.

I find the majority opinion to be persuasive in a "status quo" way. We never bothered to object to fingerprinting as a tool to solve crimes. I side with dissent here. Scalia's is just better reasoned. And with a certain degree of dickishness.



Thanks, Jerry. My first reaction was, "What's the big deal?" Scalia, however, set me straight. An outstanding, articulate, well reasoned dissent. And I like the dickish nature when he is defending the individual from the government. Harking back to the Founding Fathers doesn't hurt, either.

Bad decision by the SCOTUS.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern_Man

Disagree w/ the decision. A clear abuse of privacy and ignoring the protections of the 4th amendment. Cops can make up any pretext they want for arresting anybody.

That's one of the things that bothers me, and it seems to me a real possibility for abuse. Say the police have a "hunch" about someone, but no probable cause for a warrant to collect a DNA sample. Now they can just generate an excuse for an arrest (for example, a traffic stop and then provoking or initiating a "confrontation") and they get their sample. Of course if the "suspect" is innocent they now have an arrest on their record, which can be problematic in itself (think applying for a job) and may later be used to "prove" the innocent "suspect" has violent tendencies.

Not to mention the "slippery slope" of requiring a DNA sample to get a driver's license, a business license, or whatever. If the DNA is "just to verify your identity", and collecting it is not a "search", then there seems to be no constitutional bar to requiring such a sample.

If the police have suspicion but no evidence, they currently can collect a DNA sample by following the subject and collecting discarded materials such as a drink cup that will contain transferred DNA. More work for sure, but that way innocent people don't end up saddled with an arrest record.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0