[Vision2020] DNA and the Constitution

[Donovan Arnold]

I think the law should focus attention on how the DNA is used not how it is collected. The collection itself doesn't violate anyone. It is how it is used that violates a person. To use it to do a genealogy match, grow organs, create offspring of a famous person, plant evidence, etc. I can see as a crime. I don't see how using it to rule in or out suspects in a murder or rape is wrong. After all, if you violated someone else you willing gave your DNA up to be compared. If you didn't commit a crime, it wouldn't match anything and you were not violated. If it does match, it might violate their rights, but not to the degree it violated the other person's. Remember though DNA match isn't a guilty verdict. It just means someone was probably there, it doesn't mean they committed a crime just because the DNA was there. I can take your hair brush and put your DNA at any crime scene. 
 
Donovan J. Arnold

From: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] DNA and the Constitution


 

February 24, 2013
DNA and the Constitution
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument about whether it is constitutional for a state to collect DNA from people charged with violent crimes but not yet convicted. Last April, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a state law authorizing such collection violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. 
Maryland law enforcement officials were allowed to continue collecting DNA samples, however, through an order last July by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. He said there was a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court would reverse the Maryland decision, which conflicts with rulings of the Virginia Supreme Court and of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third and the Ninth Circuits on similar statutes in other states. But the justices should uphold the Maryland court’s ruling, thus calling into question those other rulings. The Maryland law clearly contravenes the Fourth Amendment. 
The case involves the collection of DNA from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after his arrest on assault charges in 2009. His DNA profile matched evidence from a rape in 2003, and he was convicted of that rape. 
The state did not, however, obtain a warrant to collect his DNA, nor did it establish that it had probable cause to think that his DNA would link him either to the assault or the rape. It did not even meet the lowest threshold for some searches, by establishing that it had a reasonable basis for taking his DNA, or showing that the DNA evidence would disappear unless it was collected. 
Maryland argues that collecting and analyzing DNA is like fingerprinting. But the purpose of fingerprinting is to identify someone who has been arrested. Maryland was using DNA for investigative purposes, not identification, and doing so without legal justification. 
Maryland also argues that the incursion on Mr. King’s privacy was minor compared with the major benefit in crime-solving. But the number of crimes solved with DNA from people arrested has been low. The substantial harm to innocent people that could result from the misuse of DNA greatly outweighs the benefits. And the safeguard against such harm is the Fourth Amendment, whose fundamental protections the Maryland court upheld. The Supreme Court should do likewise. 

-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com



=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130225/5d310d2d/attachment-0001.html>