Help lay out the case: DNA by warrant only.

[GunnyFreedom]

Please, start the conversation.

arguing from the Constitution and Bill of Rights

 

[nobody's_hero]

???

Without knowing anything about it:

If it's the government's idea, it probably sucks. I don't like it.

EDIT: Redirect here if you're like me and you want to know what Gunny is talking about:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?289662-Collecting-DNA-upon-arrest

Okay, thinking about it, I probably fall into the 'no DNA without a proper conviction.'

Too many people associate arrest with guilt. It's easy to be wrongfully arrested, and starting DNA on everyone who is simply arrested should be a precedent worth avoiding.

 

[nayjevin]

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

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

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.'

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.

Related cases

The Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983)[11] lowered the threshold of probable cause by ruling that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause. A better-than-even chance is not required.
The decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)[12] established that "stop and frisks" (seizures) may be made under reasonable suspicion if the officer believes a crime has been committed, is, or soon will be committed with a weapon concealed on such person.

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)"

 

[Anti Federalist]

Please, start the conversation.

arguing from the Constitution and Bill of Rights

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

 

[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.'

and secure in their possessions. are live cells still in your cheek defined as your possession?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

Who says I agree with fingerprints? but I will leave that alone for now as we don't know how to function otherwise as of yet.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Who says I agree with fingerprints? but I will leave that alone for now as we don't know how to function otherwise as of yet.

I agree and that's where I'm starting my research, to find out just how constitutionally legitimate fingerprinting is.

Call that into question and then fingerprint's evil brother, DNA databasing, becomes a little more easy to shoot down.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure what the constitutional way around the 5th amendment is for DNA, I know there was a case, but I'm going to have to look into it.

 

[Teaser Rate]

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

I don't want to sound crass, but what is your issue?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don't want to sound crass, but what is your issue?

Please don't derail Gunny's thread.

Since you have picked at me about this before, go start a thread of your own:

"Why is AF an anti-authority jerk?" and I'll be happy to respond.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Glen, read this article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20101110.html

Here's the money quote:

Is DNA Different?

What makes this case special may ultimately have less to do with the presumption of innocence than with the treasure trove of information that is contained in a small sample of DNA. Unlike ordinary searches, in which the main intrusion occurs at the time of initial surveillance, a DNA sampling -- as Judge Cercone correctly observes -- has the potential to make large quantities of personal information about someone available to the government long after the sampling takes place.

In this sense, DNA squarely raises the issue of informational privacy, rather than spatial privacy, precisely because the physical taking of DNA is not very different from the physical taking of fingerprints (and may indeed be, or shortly become, an entirely nonintrusive collection of discarded biological material).

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decides this case, it will accordingly have the opportunity to consider the relatively undeveloped and critical issue of whether, sometimes, the mining of information from materials already in the government's possession might constitute the invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[nayjevin]

The default argument will be "It's just like fingerprints, and those are taken as a matter of course during an arrest, so what's your issue?"

So that is what will have to be defused.

Cataloguing identifying information causes more harm than good. Any enforcement agency should collect the minimum necessary and adequate to perform their function. One might argue fingerprints are necessary and DNA is too, but I don't see a winning argument that fingerprints are not adequate enough.

 

[nayjevin]

and secure in their possessions. are live cells still in your cheek defined as your possession?

I think it falls under 'persons.'

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think it falls under 'persons.'

LOL yeah, I'm sure a strong argument can be made that tissue is a component of one's person.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't want to sound crass, but what is your issue?

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.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

hmm leg 2 of a 3 legged stool...

Glen, read this article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20101110.html

Here's the money quote:

Is DNA Different?

What makes this case special may ultimately have less to do with the presumption of innocence than with the treasure trove of information that is contained in a small sample of DNA. Unlike ordinary searches, in which the main intrusion occurs at the time of initial surveillance, a DNA sampling -- as Judge Cercone correctly observes -- has the potential to make large quantities of personal information about someone available to the government long after the sampling takes place.

In this sense, DNA squarely raises the issue of informational privacy, rather than spatial privacy, precisely because the physical taking of DNA is not very different from the physical taking of fingerprints (and may indeed be, or shortly become, an entirely nonintrusive collection of discarded biological material).

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decides this case, it will accordingly have the opportunity to consider the relatively undeveloped and critical issue of whether, sometimes, the mining of information from materials already in the government's possession might constitute the invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree and that's where I'm starting my research, to find out just how constitutionally legitimate fingerprinting is.

Call that into question and then fingerprint's evil brother, DNA databasing, becomes a little more easy to shoot down.

I knew you agreed, I was just responding to the argument.

 

[iprice81]

I think you could argue the 5th. Not having to bear witness against yourself.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Cataloguing identifying information causes more harm than good. Any enforcement agency should collect the minimum necessary and adequate to perform their function. One might argue fingerprints are necessary and DNA is too, but I don't see a winning argument that fingerprints are not adequate enough.

When do we get to crossover again? No, not over to the Senate - I mean to the crossover of Federal RealID biometrics and the 50? State DNA databases. Will we route that stuff through the fusion centers, to be checked against terrorists? who is a terrorist again? This is chilling. As for me, my DNA is registered with the Marine Corps. It shows up first on any search.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think you could argue the 5th. Not having to bear witness against yourself.

That too. the 3rd leg of the stool