<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:8pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">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 <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-0><SPAN>genealogy</SPAN></SPAN> 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. <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-1><SPAN>After all</SPAN></SPAN>, 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. </SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Donovan J. Arnold</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><BR style="RIGHT: auto"></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto" dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Art Deco <art.deco.studios@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> vision2020@moscow.com <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Monday, February 25, 2013 9:41 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [Vision2020] DNA and the Constitution<BR></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1643090096>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=yiv1643090096>
<DIV class=yiv1643090096><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/" rel=nofollow target=_blank><IMG border=0 hspace=0 alt="The New York Times" align=left src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif"></A> </DIV>
<DIV class=yiv1643090096></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV>
<DIV class=yiv1643090096>February 24, 2013</DIV>
<H1>DNA and the Constitution</H1>
<DIV id=yiv1643090096articleBody>
<div>On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear <A title="Scotusblog page about Maryland v. King" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/maryland-v-king/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>argument</A> 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 <A title="King v. Maryland, decided on April 24, 2012" href="http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/desktop/public/document/King_v_State_No_68_September_Term_2011_2012_BL_101599_Md_Apr_24_2" rel=nofollow target=_blank>ruled</A> that a state law authorizing such collection violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. </div>
<div>Maryland law enforcement officials were allowed to continue collecting DNA samples, however, through <A title="Maryland v. King, July 30, 2012" href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Md-v.-King-CJ-opinion-7-30-12.pdf" rel=nofollow target=_blank>an order</A> 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. </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>Maryland <A title="Brief for the state of Maryland" href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-207_pet.authcheckdam.pdf" rel=nofollow target=_blank>argues</A> 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. </div>
<div>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 <A title=Editorial href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/opinion/dna-and-the-fourth-amendment.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank>crimes solved with DNA</A> 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. </div>
<DIV class=yiv1643090096></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</A><BR><BR><IMG src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><BR></DIV></DIV><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the <SPAN id=misspell-0 class=mark>Palouse</SPAN> since 1994.<BR> <A href="http://www.fsr.net/" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net/</A><BR> <SPAN id=misspell-1 class=mark>mailto</SPAN>:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR></DIV></DIV><VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></div></body></html>