Forced DNA submissions

[Orleander]

So after a criminal is released from prison he can be forced to submit DNA??? What about search adn seizure laws? Right to privacy? You give these rights up in prison, but after???? Slippery slope!!!!!!!!!
____________________________
US Court Allows Some Forced DNA Tests

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government can require certain criminals to submit to DNA testing after their release from prison, a divided U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday in a reversal of an opinion it issued last year.

In October, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law requiring people convicted of serious crimes to give blood for an FBI databank was unconstitutional. That 2-1 decision sided with the plaintiffs's argument that such a requirement violated Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures.

An expanded panel of 11 judges overturned the opinion in a 6-5 decision on Wednesday.

"Compulsory DNA profiling of qualified federal offenders is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the majority.

"Therefore, we today realign ourselves with every other state and federal appellate court to have considered these issues -- squarely holding that the DNA Act satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

The case stems from a former Navy sailor Thomas Kincade who robbed a bank in 1993 with a gun. After his release from prison in 2000, tests showed cocaine in his urine and a court required him to undergo a drug program.

When his probation officer asked Kincade to submit a DNA blood test, he challenged the constitutionality of the 2000 law requiring certain criminals to provide DNA samples.

"The interests furthered by the federal DNA Act are undeniably compelling," the court ruled. "DNA profiling of qualified federal offenders helps bring closure to countless victims of crime who long have languished in the knowledge that perpetrators remain at large."

"DNA profiling can help to steer conditional releases toward law-abiding lives."

California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer hailed the decision. "California's DNA data bank contains profiles of 245,00 convicted felons," he said in a statement. "These data banks are crucial to match convicted felons to crime scene evidence and solve cases that were before deemed unsolvable."

Five judges dissented, with Judge Stephen Reinhardt calling the decision a "dangerous and drastic" limitation on liberties.

"All Americans will be at risk, sooner rather than later, of having our DNA samples permanently placed on file in federal cyberspace, and perhaps even worse, of being subjected to various other governmental programs providing for suspicionless searches," wrote Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat.

"It is undoubtedly true that were we to maintain DNA files on all persons living in this country we would make the resolution of criminal investigations easier," he wrote.

"The same would be true were we to sacrifice all of our interests in privacy and personal liberty.

"We as judges do not have the authority to sacrifice those constitutional protections."

Monica Knox, a federal public defender in Los Angeles who represents Kincade, said she would seek to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court

[CTDL92]

We are in a new era. The manners of which crimes are committed have changed and we need to change along with them. Fingerprints are quickly losing their status as best evidence. It is no secret what our forensic services guys do when they go to seens, everyone sees it on TV regardless of whether it is an hour long drama on prime time or an educational show on TLC the bad guys watch it and learn from it. The evidence collected at scenes just 10-15 years ago that the labs couldn't do anything with is now able to be tested with great accuracy. The technology is there to be used, no one complained about mandatory fingerprinting when arrested so what is the dilema with mandatory DNA upon release. I don't feel search and seizure laws apply to this process,thos is court ordered as a condition of release.

[Jynkxxie]

I guess my question is, people are o.k. with criminals giving their fingerprints but not a DNA sample? Serial Rapist..."Did I leave any evidence...Oh that's right they don't have my DNA on file. Silly me."

[Strijder]

I'm not sure I'd want my genetic makeup to be in the public domain for just anyone to examine, but as long as the DNA records were kept in a secure database used exclusively for police, I can't see why not to allow it

[Jynkxxie]

Are you a criminal?

[Switchback]

For law enforcement purposes, I think having DNA logged is GREAT! The key is that we limit access fromother sources. Think of what would happen if the insurance companies could have DNA samples. They could limit/charge more for insuring people with DNA markers indicating a propensity to certain ilnesses/diseases. That is the thing that scares me... not the LE aspect.

...yeah, what can I say. I had a biotechnology ethics class back in college. LOL

[ngcsubutterbar]

yeah switch, I think those issues are the ones that worry me the most as well. This is one of those things that isn't black/white to look at.

[Oldbillplod]

In the UK if someone is charged with an offence we automatically take their DNA, if they are found not guilty at court they can witness their DNA being distroyed if they wish.

[ngcsubutterbar]

but then the forever paranoid 'did they really destroy it, or are they stock piling the information if not the actual sample in files in the English equivilent of Area-51' (what would that be? Stonehenge? :D )

[Oldbillplod]

but then the forever paranoid 'did they really destroy it, or are they stock piling the information if not the actual sample in files in the English equivilent of Area-51' (what would that be? Stonehenge? :D )

Ah yes but do we really care ;)

[Jynkxxie]

yeah switch, I think those issues are the ones that worry me the most as well. This is one of those things that isn't black/white to look at.

How is it not black and white? The article talked about serious offenses...Felons...Not insurance companies...Not Suzy Homemaker...I doubt that for purposes other than LE anyone would go for this....

Don't do something that would force you to be placed in jail and you should be fine. I am the most paranoid person you will ever meet and even this, using it for felons does not phase me....

Like I said...how different is this from a fingerprint?

[CTDL92]

We have a statewide datat base called CODIS, very much like AFIS for fingerprints. IT is law enforcement only, no body else has access to it. Currently it is only sexual offenders in the database but it works. We have had many cold cases cleared as a result of it, i.e. 20 years ago they collected a sperm sample from a rape/homicide but couldn't do anything with it. Current follow up on the investigation, the sample which has been on the shelf until now is submitted and hits on sex offender in jail. Case cleared. Every felon, state or federal, should be in the system. Burglar wears gloves, no fingerprints, but cuts himself on broken glass going through window. sample collected at scene submitted and hits on him from prior burglary conviction. case cleared. The opponents to this don't like it becasue it will convict them, everyone else who fears it thinks big brother will use it against them. If you haven't been arrested and don't plan on committing crime why are you worried?

[Deputy757]

So after a criminal is released from prison he can be forced to submit DNA??? What about search adn seizure laws? Right to privacy? You give these rights up in prison, but after???? Slippery slope!!!!!!!!!

I would imagine that it's legal because all you need for a search warrant is probable cause and if the court says probable cause exists in these limited situations, then you're golden. After all, career criminals (which is what we are talking about here) "probably" committed other crimes that they were never prosecuted for and "probably" will commit more crimes in the future. Before I get flamed, they aren't talking about the guy who stole a car, ran into a hard core judge, and wound up in prison. They're talking about the serial rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc., whose likelihood of rehabilitation is between slim and none and slim left town! I know others will cry out "slippery slope" as did Orleander but I'm with Jynkxxie...I'm just not that worried!

[Jynkxxie]

Like I said though Dep, why is this any different than fingerprints? This DNA submission should be done as they enter the CJ system, just as fingerprints do. That seems more appropriate to me. No violation of rights then. There have been numerous amount of cases where PC and or exigent circumstances were all that was needed to obtain blood and there was no violation of the 4th or the 5th Amendment Right of Self Incrimination.

[Strijder]

Are you a criminal?

Not the last I knew. :p I'm just saying I have no problems with it if done right, even if it were to happen to me.