Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.

dasmi

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
2,783
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
This really ought to frighten and anger everyone here. Enjoy.


washingtonpost.com
Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested

By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 24, 2005; A03

Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.

The controversial measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. The data are stored in an FBI-maintained national registry that law enforcement officials use to aid investigations, by comparing DNA from criminals with evidence found at crime scenes.

Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly.

"When police retrace the history of a serial predator after he is finally caught, they often find that he never had a prior criminal conviction, but did have a prior arrest," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said in a statement. "That means the only way they are likely to catch such a perpetrator after his first crime -- rather than his 10th -- is if authorities can maintain a comprehensive database of all those who are arrested, just as we do with fingerprints."

Privacy advocates across the political spectrum say the proposal is another step in expanding government intrusion.

"DNA is not like fingerprinting," said Jesselyn McCurdy, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It contains genetic information and information about diseases." She added that the ACLU questions whether it is constitutional to put data from those who have not been convicted into a database of convicted criminals.

The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved.

Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses such as profiling based on genetic characteristics.

"This clearly opens the door to all kinds of race- or ethnic-based stops" by police, said Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital policy think tank.

Originally, the federal DNA database was limited to convicted sex offenders, who often repeat their crimes. Then it was expanded to include violent felons. Several states, including Virginia, also collect DNA from those arrested for violent crimes.

"It's a classic mission-creep situation," said Jim Harper, a privacy specialist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "These guys are playing a great law and order game . . . and in the process creating a database that could be converted into something quite dangerous."

Typically, DNA is taken from suspects via a swab of saliva. A DNA "profile" -- or unique numeric signature -- is generated, which can be stored without including private genetic information.

But privacy advocates say they are unclear how the growing number of state and federal samples are being handled, recorded and secured.

The Kyl measure was added to a bill to strengthen penalties for violent acts against women and was approved without a roll-call vote. McCurdy said she hopes that negotiations among Judiciary Committee members result in changes before the legislation is voted on by the Senate.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
 
The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved.

Guilty until proven innocent. George III would be delighted, I'm sure.
 
Fingerprints and DNA

Are you all aware that if you have ever served in the military your prints are on file? If you have served since 1990 your DNA is also on file. Quite literaly I cannot get away with spitting on the sidewalk. I agree it should not be done, but where was the hue and cry when the folks getting put "in the system" were not suspected criminals?
 
The military does have a legit reason....so they can tell who you are when all that's left of you is a red smear on the pavement.
Keeping DNA records of people you busted for driving on a suspended license or mistaken identity is a different matter IMHO.
They should actually pass law to protect the right of the .mil people that have had DNA recorded. To require the info be used for ID onlt and prevent the DB from being mined for other genetic info.
 
Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.
Just to let you guys know the only thing new is the DNA central database. The Courts have already ruled in favour of collection of blood, breath and urine samples (and other specimens of evidence) from arrested detainees. One of the most notable cases is the US Supreme Court, Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757, 86 S. CT. 1826, 16. Ed. 2d 908 (1966). On the flip side see Rochin V. California (1952) and Winston v. Lee (1985).

"DNA is not like fingerprinting," said Jesselyn McCurdy, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It contains genetic information and information about diseases." She added that the ACLU questions whether it is constitutional to put data from those who have not been convicted into a database of convicted criminals.
I suppose the ACLU’s argument is the law violates the right to privacy under HIPPA, due to the medical information about diseases. For some odd reason I don’t think the purpose of this law is to track diseases and I can’t see the court overturning a multitude of case laws to pacify the ACLU.
 
I don't like it one bit. Your friendly neighborhood neo-cons at work. But then again it's "wartime", and exigent circumstances require exigent measures. Nevermind that the war, by definition, will never end.
 
Something about CA leading the way

Last November the citizens of CA approved Prop 69.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...50/1+California+collect+dna+arrest+2006&hl=en

"Effective immediately, law enforcement workers will collect DNA samples from all adult and juvenile felons, not just violent offenders. And by 2009, every adult arrested in California on suspicion of a felony or certain misdemeanors – convicted or not – will have to provide cheek-swab samples for analysis."

I guess the feds are just playing catchup. :banghead:
 
If this database is as accurate as the IRS database, or the Credit Bureau database, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Any decent defence attorney could tear that thing to shreads.
 
I was gonna say, "well, if they destroy the records if no conviction" but, screw it, I'm getting tired of this crud.

:banghead:
 
So how long before the form asks if I've "ever been arrested for a felony?"

Of course I could pay for any defense attorney to get me off even though I'm already innocent. I can petition the courts to remove the incorrect information while I have rights withheld.

Anyone can be arrested for just about any reason. Especially if I'm creating headaches for the city council concerning imminent domain issues. Or just being a pain at the meetings by pointing out the obvious government idiocy. But that would be harrassment wouldn't it? Yeah, can't do that.

I'm guilty of something, somewhere there's a law with my name on it.

And what's a neo-con?

Vick
 
They should actually pass law to protect the right of the .mil people that have had DNA recorded. To require the info be used for ID onlt and prevent the DB from being mined for other genetic info.
They should actually pass law to protect the right of gun owners that have had a background check done. To require the info be used for background check only and prevent the DB from being kept as a de facto registry of gun owners.

If you trust the government to do or not do something just because they passed a law, I have a bridge for sale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top