Help lay out the case: DNA by warrant only.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll do my best, but I don't know all the legal definitions here.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4



Show ... secure in their persons ... includes DNA
Show ... probable cause ... does not include 'might commit a crime/likely to commit a crime'
Explain 'warrants' are a line of defense of the individual against unreasonable search and seizures. Judges, ideally, will rule with a proper understanding of 'probable cause.'

If the system works as it was intended, folks won't be subject to search or seizure unless (a) there is evidence linking them to a known crime (2) search or seizure is necessary to secure further evidence or exonerate the individual of wrongdoing.

In the case of the DNA collection in question, there is no evidentiary necessity. It's pre-crime, there is no crime to which further DNA evidence will establish guilt or innocence.

It is therefore 'unreasonable.'

By requiring a warrant, (which requires a Judge) it places a human into the process, who can discern what is actually reasonable. It is a Constitutional requirement that DNA be named in a search warrant if it is required to be taken.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
Looks like the courts have not upheld my idea of probable cause. Apparently it's been loosened by precedent over time, to the point it's whether the official thought he ought to.



Also I see:

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)" [quote/]

evidence of crime to be found is sufficient for a judicial warrant to search for DNA is exactly the kind of warrant to use when pursuing certain kinds of sexual crimes murder abduction etc. There is no need to extend the unthinking arm of regulation into the systemic automatic cataloging and databasing of identities statewide and potentially nationwide, without regard to privacy in the 4th, or due process in the 5th Amendments.

 

[Teaser Rate]

the point of the thread is to argue the issue, in order to perfect the floor debate. We already lack enough devil's advocates as it is without you sniping at them.

I don’t mean to sound crass (again) but I'm not sure you should be at the stage of constructing a constitutional argument if you’re not able to articulate your position in a short, calm and concise response yet.

The way I see it, there are three ways you can approach this:

A-This proposal is wrong because it infringes of a libertarian definition of human rights.
B-This proposal is wrong because it infringes on a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
C-This proposal is wrong because it doesn’t work.

My advice is to focus on the third option because you’re probably going to have a really hard time convincing anyone with the first two arguments. Try to see where the measure has been implemented before and what its results were, try to find cases where DNA evidence was misleading or where the police abused its authority, conduct a cost-benefit analysis (if you can produce numbers and charts which demonstrate that the measure will waste money and make the State less safe that would be great), find testimonials of police officers or forensic investigators who are against the measure, etc.

Anyways, this was my last post in the thread, good luck with your quest.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don’t mean to sound crass (again) but I'm not sure you should be at the stage of constructing a constitutional argument if you’re not able to articulate your position in a short, calm and concise response yet.

The way I see it, there are three ways you can approach this:

A-This proposal is wrong because it infringes of a libertarian definition of human rights.
B-This proposal is wrong because it infringes on a literal interpretation of the Constitution.
C-This proposal is wrong because it doesn’t work.

My advice is to focus on the third option because you’re probably going to have a really hard time convincing anyone with the first two arguments. Try to see where the measure has been implemented before and what its results were, try to find cases where DNA evidence was misleading or where the police abused its authority, conduct a cost-benefit analysis (if you can produce numbers and charts which demonstrate that the measure will waste money and make the State less safe that would be great), find testimonials of police officers or forensic investigators who are against the measure, etc.

Anyways, this was my last post in the thread, good luck with your quest.

Now, was that so hard?

You could have done that right from the get go, instead of trying to score a cheap shot off me.

 

[fisharmor]

1. Jurors are generally intellectually incapable of seeing that a DNA or fingerprint match does not necessarily imply guilt.
2. Public defenders have no economic motive to explain this to jurors.
3. Since these tools are prosecution argument silver bullets, it behooves a free society either to change the legal system, or prohibit access to these.
4. As the legal system will not change outside of revolution, the only way to do this is to put extra burdens of proof on the enforcers, and make them do the job of the jury: to find the facts of the case prior to sealing it up with this damning evidence.

 

[sailingaway]

found this but not yet the ruling
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11055/1127563-454.stm

 

[sailingaway]

found this but not yet the ruling
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11055/1127563-454.stm

Here's a discussion of DNA and privacy but it doesn't include the ruling in the article above http://academic.udayton.edu/health/05bioethics/00rooker.htm

 

[GunnyFreedom]

this much data can come up with a way to rewrite the law to make it an "advice to judges" for issuing judicial warrants as-needed to establish the facts of the charges. Then the statists can have fun trying to detail it correctly, it will be in the form of advise to judges who will still rule and issue warrants, so theoretically the advice can't hurt anything worse, just add efficiency to the process, and the people who do rate having DNA compelled do still have their DNA compelled from them, and all the horrifying outlier toddler children are properly avenged.

 

[nayjevin]

Are there any government contracts for housing the mined DNA data or 3rd parties involved? The chain of custody here could be a nightmare in privacy. In a quick search I'm seeing calls for DNA banking to fight a War on Babydumping.

Might be a compelling argument that the DNA collection proposal is ripe for corruption if it can be found out who exactly is pushing for the relevant contracts.

Many states house infant DNA data for months to years, I'm having trouble finding the chart. But here's ACLU on infant DNA and informed consent.

 

[DamianTV]

How is DNA any different from Fingerprints?

(I really really hope you'll be able to overcome my Devil's Advocate response...)

 

[Noob]

How about using this as an example?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olice-cell-DNA-taken-dropping-apple-core.html

 

[nayjevin]

How is DNA any different from Fingerprints?

(I really really hope you'll be able to overcome my Devil's Advocate response...)

A fingerprint is only identifying information. Still a violation, in my opinion, but less downside.

The usage might be the same, if the only information taken from the DNA is what is necessary to identify the accused. But if that is the only function, fingerprints ought to suffice. DNA holds much more information than that. I don't know how much or what, but would assume the more one learns about what can be done with a DNA sample, the scarier it would be in corrupt hands.

 

[Indy Vidual]

...DNA holds much more information than that. I don't know how much...

"...a single cubic centimeter of DNA holds more information than a trillion CDs"
~Source

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

If clandestine resistance against a tyrannical government becomes necessary, databases containing citizen DNA will make such resistance much more difficult and dangerous. That's by far the main reason I'm opposed to government DNA collection unless there's a darned good reason for it (e.g., investigating a rape). When the government has your DNA in its possession, it has a LOT of power over you.

I realize that this is hardly a legal argument and it won't sway those who have the typical authoritarian attitude ("If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care if they can monitor you?"). But there it is.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Here we go again. DNA bill on the calendar for voting tonight in about 60-90 minutes

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Nightmare on a local bill, all kinds of time spent on honorary resolutions, three quickies after this to the DNA bill.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Two more non roll call third readings, and then HB483 DNA

 

[GunnyFreedom]

DNA bill up in literally 90-120 secs

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Speaking now

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Done. We'll see if it helps

 

[Anti Federalist]

Done. We'll see if it helps

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

It's a damn shame I missed a meeting with you passing through NC a couple of weeks ago.

Keep up the good work.