Slashdot Mirror
What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA?
NevDull writes "As creepy as it may be to deal with identity theft from corporate databases, imagine being swabbed for DNA samples as a suspect in a crime, being vindicated by that sample, and never even being told why you were suspected. This article discusses a man, Roger Valadez, who's fighting both to have his DNA sample and its profile purged from government records, and to find out why he and his DNA were searched in the BTK case. DA Nola Foulston said, 'I think some people are overwrought about their concerns.' -- convenient as she wasn't the one probed without explanation. The article then mentions that 'In California, police will be able in 2008 to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, whether the person is convicted or not, under a law approved by voters in November.' What will be the disposition of the DNA of the innocent?"
Everyone convicted of a felony has to give a DNA sample before sentencing.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
It's more reliable, more useful, more efficent... and people believe in it.
People are afraid because they think that all it will take is some lab person to testify that the dna matched and they will be convicted.
Of course we've never had a problem with that before.
This stuff has already been decided. A DNA sample is not covered by the 5th amendment.
Try to have your state lower the drinking age to 19
;)
Bad example, since the drinking age is already set by states. There is no federal drinking age.
It happens to be 21 because federal highway funding to the states is tied to compliance with setting it to that age. However, there was a span of time where certain states such as Louisiana had a lower legal age. (The theory is that Louisiana makes more money off alcohol sales during Mardi Gras than they get from highway funding, but who knows)
(a)A person whose DNA profile has been included in the data bank pursuant to this chapter shall have his or her DNA specimen and sample destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program pusuant to the procedures set forth in subdivision (b) if the person has no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies that person [for inclusion] and there is otherwise no legal bases for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile.
(b)Pursuant to subdivision (a), a person who has no past or present qualifying offense, and for whom there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile, may make a written request to have his or her specimen and sample and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program if:
(c)(1)The person requesting the data bank entry to be expunged must send a copy of his or her request to the trial court of the county where the arrest occured, or that entered the conviction or rendered disposition in the case, to the [lab], and to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which he or she was arrested or, convicted, or adjudicated, with proof of service on all parties. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the request for expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition or writ.
Emphasis mine. So even if you jump through the damn complicated hoops, a judge can just say "No" and you are done--it's there for good. That's some great law, California! As for the earlier poster that thinks this is OK because we leave DNA everywhere anyway, like Gattaca--that movie did not represent this situation as a GOOD THING. It was a dystopian vision, not something to begrudgingly accept.
blarg.
The law was passed as Prop 69 last year. Yes, it requires that eventually all people convicted of felony charges and certain misdemeanor charges provide DNA samples, and all persons convicted of a felony under the care or direction of the California Penal System (in custody or on parole or probation) provide samples. In addition, it laid out very specific rules for what to do with DNA of people not charged or found not guilty. Of note from California Penal Code Section 299:
Basically, if a person is found not guilty or acquitted, or charges have been dropped for at least 180 days and there is no retrial or appeal pending (this is covered later), then the person may submit a written request to have the record expunged and the sample destroyed. The law basically requires that the request be granted as long as a few things are included, none of which are easily avoided because of the wording of the law.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
What happens if mass testing becomes "routine" throughout the US? The fair and proper terms for the disposal of DNA samples of vindicated people is going to become a big, big thing. And please, don't give me "if you're innocent you have nothing to fear". DNA evidence can easily be altered or corrupted within the first few hours of collection. Especially if you have a sample already in hand. A very uncommon thing today but who can say about tomorrow.
We all know the answer to these questions:
Will the DNA sample of a vindicated person be disposed of after the trial, after all appeals or never? Never
Will the refusal to voluntarily give a DNA sample subject you to further scrutiny than a similar person who willingly submits? Yes
Will employers someday within the next ten years require a DNA sample for employment, similar to how most major retail chains require a test for legel and illegal drug use (Like Wal-Mart or Home Depot)? Yes
Will the US Congress do anything to protect the rights of the individual into this intrusion into one's privacy? No
Welcome to the New Amerika. Please leave your quaint notions of personal freedom at the border.
Here and Now : Truro DNA Case - 1/12/2005
Boston.com / News / Local / DNA testing troubles some in Truro
CBS News ACLU Slams Mass DNA Collection
USATODAY.com - ACLU seeks end to Mass. DNA collections
Cape Cod Times article: "New England town abuzz over DNA dragnet"
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
(c)(1)The person requesting the data bank entry to be expunged must send a copy of his or her request to the trial court of the county where the arrest occured, or that entered the conviction or rendered disposition in the case, to the [lab], and to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which he or she was arrested or, convicted, or adjudicated, with proof of service on all parties. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the request for expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition or writ. (thank you jeblucas!)
See that last sentence? A judge can just tell you to go screw yourself if he so chooses anyway!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Actually there is a precident to this. Years ago Congress mandated motorcycle helmet laws, also using the highway funds as an inducement. One or more states bucked and took it to court. It was held that funds collected within a state for highways could not be with held. Several states then revoked their helmet laws. The difference is that enough people in state offices feel that the drinking laws are appropriate so that it has not been challenged.
I live in Wichita, and I have an uncle that was actually a better match to BTK than Dennis Raider. He graduated from the same university 2 years earlier, lived closer to the railroad tracks, and goes by the name Buk. Buk is only one letter off from btk, btw.
The police came to his house. His wife opened the door. The police asked if they could have a swab of his DNA. He didn't resist, and the police were very polite through the whole ordeal.
Now, in this case there was no police brutality, no coersion, no force, etc. Just a simple "may we get a swab of your DNA". My uncle had the right to say no, but obviously the police would have held him under the microscope.
There are really two separate issues in play here.
First, do the police have a right to request DNA evidense from a potentical suspect. I believe they do have the right to ask. I also believe the fifth ammendment gives the right to not incriminate yourself, so you do have the right to say no. The police will still consider you a suspect, but that's the way the law works.
Second, (and more importantly) once the police have cleared your name, does the DNA evidense get thrown away or warehoused? Everything said in the local papers and news has been that the evidense will get thrown away, but it would be nice to have some confirmation of that fact. I'll tell you that if the evidense doesn't get thrown away, the DA is going to get an ear-full from some 1300 of our swabbed citizens.
Side note, I actually have a family member that works at the prision where Dennis is being held. He said that Dennis didn't like the food. <g>
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN