Slashdot Mirror
DNA Testing Proposed For All Felony Arrests In New Mexico
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The AP reports that a proposal to expand DNA testing to anyone arrested for a felony in New Mexico has passed the state House, expanding a 2006 state law requiring DNA samples of those arrested of certain violent felonies, such as murder, kidnapping and sex offenses. 'We must give law enforcement the best possible tools to prevent crime and convict criminals, and requiring DNA samples from those arrested for felonies is simply the modern-day equivalent of fingerprinting,' says Governor Susana Martinez. Under the measure, already enacted in a dozen states, suspects 18 and older will have to provide DNA samples — from a cheek swab, for example — when they're booked at jails for any felony, as supporters says the expanded testing can help prevent crimes. But opponents contend the testing violates a person's right to privacy and could cause police to make arrests on a pretext to obtain a DNA sample."
If that were all, you'd be fine limiting this sampling to convicts instead of every arrested suspect.
If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this.
But I'd be all in for required DNA for felony convictions. Sounds like with them trying to get this under the guise of "it's like a fingerprint" they are fishing for other crimes that can be attached to the arrestee. I'd be interested to see some data regarding the number of felony arrests vs the number of felony convictions in that state.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Not like the police don't arrest people on false pretenses and then drop the charges or anything...
Security is more important than your personal privacy or perverse incentives concerns citizen.
An arrest just an accusation, not a conviction. Until it is proven that a person has committed a crime, the state has no right to obtain such data. Hell, even fingerprints should be withheld until it is proven that a person has committed a crime. That or, at the very least, all fingerprints and other personal identifying information should be removed from government control upon charges being dropped or when a person is found not guilty.
It seems that government is looking to creep further and further into people's bodies without just cause. The founder of the United States would be extremely angry at what this great nation has become.
Also, it has nothing to do with whether or not any of us have anything to hide. It is government's responsibility, within the United States, to prove anything wrong has occurred; it is not a citizen's responsibility to prove their innocence. Such a stance of "if you have nothing to hide, then you should have no problem with this" is just a euphemism for "prove you are innocent".
Do they mean to collect upon arrest or conviction? I was under the impression people were innocent until proven guilty in the country, even in back-ass Arizona... If you're CONVICTED that is way different than just arrested. If you're convicted, you lose rights anyway, so I'd be less offended. If this is upon arrest, that is a huge civil liberties violation.
today is spelling optional day.
The legislation will expand what's called "Katie's Law" in memory of Kathryn Sepich, a New Mexico State University student who was raped and murdered in 2003. Sepich's killer was identified more than three years later with DNA evidence after he was CONVICTED of another crime.
So why swab someone who has only been arrested?
"If we can start by matching these CRIMINALS up to their previous crimes..." --Rep. Al Park
Wow. So this is what due process has come to. Arrest = criminal. I'd like to take a jab at New Mexico but DNA testing at arrest is a nationwide effort.
biggest objection i have is who is paying for this? DNA tests don't grow on trees.
then there is the fruit of poison tree. if some one were arrested for no reason, is their DNA still admissible?
the most costly is the number of people suing because they were arrested just to get a DNA sample. Who is going to pay for the defense and the settlement?
other then that it'll make criminals easier to catch.
Interesting question. Let's assume a theoretical person "I". "I" am "pre-emptively arrested" for a felony in order to get a DNA sample, but that specific arrest itself is later to have been found to be without reasonable cause, AKA it was a fishing expedition. Let's also assume that "I" have other warrants or am a suspect in crimes where there is an existing DNA sample. Mostly these would be sexual crimes, assaults, and murder related, that is, I don't think that police departments are DNA swabbing every known crime scene (burglaries, car thefts, etc.). In this scenario, the tainted match results in the possibility of a conviction for an unrelated issue. The false arrest is a legal taint -- the police aren't allowed to do it -- and so any evidence recovered in this manner would become unusable in BOTH cases.
As opposed to "I am brought in for questioning", offered a drink of water, a cigarette, or WHATEVER as a ruse for the police to get a DNA sample, a fingerprint, etc. -- tactics that have been held to be legal in many many court cases. Why would I as a police department risk the inevitable lawsuit and serious legal expense, or the loss of a predator/violent criminal/murderous type with an arrest when I can do something much cheaper to get the DNA sample I need?
I think the bigger "security vs. freedom" issue would be along the lines of "we got a DNA sample on file for you and we can keep it and share it with anyone we want for whatever reason and you will never know who/how/why it was shared". Because we trust governments SO much to only do the right things with our personal information, to never allow their databases to be sold, shared, hacked, etc., right?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
What guarantee do we have that the samples will be destroyed and the database records will be deleted if the suspect is found not guilty or the charges are dropped?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
So, in other words, unreliable and inaccurately interpreted. Someone did a study where they sent fingerprint samples to various fingerprint experts. On a second round, 9 out of 10 failed to identify the fingerprints as belonging to the same person as on the first time (the fingerprint experts were unaware that they had previously identified these specific prints).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Hmm so basically we are saying fuck due process and everyone is eventually guilty of something? I was arrested once for a warrant that ended up being someone else with the same name, it was straightened out in a couple of hours (actually in about 5 minutes but I spend 2 hours in a holding cell waiting for them to get around to me) from what I was told it happens all the time. I wouldn't have a problem with dna samples for felony convictions but this is ridiculous. Its amazing how much of our own personal freedoms some people in society are willing to completely give up in exchange for heightened paranoia and a false sense of security.
Seriously. It is blatantly unconstitutional, and a gross violation of our civil rights, but that doesn't stop more than half of out elected officials who swore to defend and protect the constitution from voting on it. Nor did it stop the majority of the people in the state from voting for a Governor who made crap like this a major part of her platform. Although the opposition was only slightly better as she constantly bragged about her role in passing Katie's law, the forerunner to this shit.
I have no hope left for this country because the people are begging to have their rights taken away so they can feel safe from the terrorists/immigrants/pedophiles/druggies/teenagers/neighbor with shaggy lawn.
The thing with DNA is that you have a tendency to scatter it around. That's the whole point of testing: not the DNA that has to be taken from you, but the DNA that somebody left voluntarily at the crime scene.
Your face is already not particularly private. If the cops are looking for you, and they see your face, they're going to say, "Hey, it's that guy", and nobody is going to bring up privacy concerns. A very few people make a point of hiding their faces all the time, but it's inconvenient and unpleasant. You could probably keep your DNA private, too, as long as you didn't mind wearing a stilsuit whenever you went out.
Our intuitive notions of "privacy" simply don't apply to DNA. Obviously nobody supports arrests simply for the purpose of harassment, but that's already illegal (and hard to prove). But this is a brave new world: the cops can get their hands on my DNA if they want to. Adding a procedure less difficult than taking fingerprints to an already (presumably valid) arrest just doesn't seem like it's any more a violation of my rights than I was already doing.
(And yes, I said "presumably valid". Conviction is not the same as grounds for arrest, but they're not allowed to go arresting people just because they feel like it. Invalid arrests remain invalid, and conflating the two issues just makes it more complicated.)
Why pick on Newt? He only cheats on his wives because he loves his country so much!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Eventually, our DNA became our ID. It was a long time coming, as the process gradually became much more reliable and cost effective. Finally, when enough people had their lives destroyed by identity theft (we're talkin' about a billion), then it was no longer a choice. In fact, the tipping point came at an election, where electronic votes were stolen en masse, and an outcome was invalidated by the court. The irony was that DNA ID would not have prevented the fraud, but so many were clamoring for it that the outrage from the scandal tipped the balance. Life is funny that way.
Why? If you are arrested, they already have your fingerprints. If you are exonerated, they still keep your fingerprints on file. They're never deleted, they're shared with everyone. To the judicial system, it is exactly the same thing - a genetic fingerprint. I understand the concern of a slippery slope, however the precedent has already been set. My major concern is less them keeping it, and more who they share it with. For instance, suppose the insurance lobby convinces congress that that information can help stimulate the economy by allowing them to better regulate risks. Peoples' DNA can be very valuable to certain groups. I'm not sure whether or not cases on the government sharing that information have ever been tried. I mean, private companies already have access to your social security number, so somewhere there has to be information sharing going on. Does anyone know whether or not there's case law on this?
Being accused opens to the door to all manner of things now. I thought it was only after the proper execution of due process should our "rights" (privileges?) be revoked.
If the DNA and the resulting info is destroyed after suspect is released of found innocent; not a huge problem.
If the DNA and the resulting info are kept in perpetuity, big problem.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
If the Government takes a DNA sample, they should be required to run it through 23andMe and give you the results for free. That would provide some benefit. The "criminal" DNA matching systems are far cruder than the 100,000 point analysis 23andMe does.
I received a 2nd DUI in 5 years (an A Felony).I had to serve 65 days on electronic monitoring (lax house arrest) and they did this when I entered the program.
I love stories like this. Why were you arrested TWICE? What made "some cop not like you"?
So they'll gather DNA from all arrestees, but will they give people the right to have further DNA tests done when the evidence might exonerate them? I keep hearing stories of innocent people in jail for years because the police labs screw up (or don't do tests at all) and they weren't given the right to do DNA tests at an external lab even if they paid for it themselves. It seems to me that laws are generally slanted towards increasing the number of people in prison regardless of whether or not they are guilty.
Cow Cube
So, upon ARREST (not conviction), the state can do anything like like to you? I guess that's fair, considering the government can now sexually assault you for the crime of buying an airline ticket.
We are living in a country where citizens rights have evaporated, so you can be "safe". My question is: Safe from what? I now fear the authorities more than any terrorist or criminal - because it's more likely that THEY will assault me at some point, violate what little rights I have left, and maybe even accidentally torture, maim, or kill me.
These days you can be tazed for speaking out at a public hearing, or beaten to death for crossing the street. I suspect it's only a matter of time before arrest == PMITA prison time before any kind of trial, just to get you "warmed up" for your new life as a criminal.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Is it just me, or are half the comments here posted by Charlie Sheen?
I've seen youtube videos of people being arrested for everything from 'reckless photography' to 'skateboarding with intent'. Typically they were charged with something generic like "creating a public disturbance". Are they bullshit reasons? Yes. But those people still got arrested on the basis that the police officer didn't like the (legal) thing they were doing.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
The problem is that this type of proposal is simply data-dredging which can lead to the prosecutor's fallacy. If the DNA test is applied to enough people, even with low error rates you're guaranteed to ensnare innocents through false positives. With a large enough number of tests, the probability of a false positive arising becomes so high that the tests become statistically meaningless and legally irrelevant. Which is why these types of tests are usually restricted to suspects which already have other evidence pointing them to the crime, instead of applying a large data-dredging net throughout the prison population.
Innocent until proven guilty. Why is that so hard for people to remember?
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
I would be all in favor of this IF it also included any and ALL elected officials and anyone serving the public such as Judges, DA's and police officers.
These people above all should have absolutely nothing to hide and should be forced to deal with the false positives just as much if not more than the average person.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
If convicted, I can see that. If there is consent, fine, I can see that.
DNA matchups are not nearly as accurate as many prosecutors would have you believe, and are also prone to errors. As others have stated, there must be adequate safeguards:
A second DNA sequence should be made by a different lab for confirmation. If they don't match each other, then a third. (DNA sequencing is MUCH cheaper than it used to be. That is not an undue burden.)
A suspect should have the right to get a test of their own done, independently. Even DUI suspects have that right in most states.
If the person is acquitted or the charges dismissed, there should be a requirement to destroy the samples, and the DNA record, within 48 hours at most.
It was recently discovered that many past animal and human genome sequences, made very carefully by scientists in the best labs available, were hopelessly contaminated. DNA sequencing is still a very tricky business and routinely using it for evidence -- or making a permanent record on somebody -- is probably inadvisable.
There is nothing on this Earth that is more "personal" than your DNA. I predict Constitutional challenges to this.
... I don't trust them to get the statistics right. Hammering a DNA database looking for matches will produce many false positives (due to the birthday paradox), and recent history suggests that those doing the searching will try (and likely succeed) in presenting to the jury the statistics that are correct when you test a single pair of samples.
Hear hear!
IMHO DNA evidence should only be usable for defense.
- A mismatch makes it obvious that the accused (if not a chimera) is not the perpetrator.
- A "match" ("non-exclusion") makes a bunch of statistical assumptions, some of which have little or no evidence in science. (Not to mention that it does poorly for excluding twins and relatives.)
So convictions should be based on OTHER things than DNA evidence.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Eventually, our DNA became our ID.
DNA is not a unique ID.
- Identical twins (and other clones) share it - to about the extent that one part of your body shares it with another.
- Releatives, especially among small population groups, share most of it. Enough to make "matches" require an inordinate number of markers to be reliable.
- Some people are chimeras - with different parts of their bodies from different egg-sperm combinations.
- And then there are transplant recipients...
Finally, it has been recently shown to be trivial to take a sample, multiply it, and use it to contaminate a crime scene or collected evidence, framing the sample's source. Similar techniques could be used to spoof DNA identity scanners.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I love stories like this. Why were you arrested TWICE? What made "some cop not like you"?
Perhaps he was arrested during protests against the erosion of his civil rights.
Am I the only person who is immediately suspicious when they said "convict criminals"?
Someone isn't a criminal until they are tried and found guilty. Using the language of "convict criminals" it is assumed that the people accused are guilty anyway, so why even both with their civil rights.....
I think most states do that already. Also police routinely request DNA as part of many investigations before an arrest is made. Denying their request may be considered cause for an arrest.
Because once it's in the papers, it's the truth.
Just sprinkle some pre-gathered DNA on the evidence and hey, look what the techs found 'upon further review'! Case closed, bonus and promotion achieved! THIS WILL HAPPEN.
I'm from New Mexico, and I'm wondering where our fearless new leader left her fiery campaign promises about the budget.
So far her big accomplishments have been:
To dissolve environmental regulations to the best of her abilities (to pay back her big energy campaign donors, even if her methods were possibly illegal)
Try to institute a very expensive overhaul of our drivers' licenses (because despite being named Martinez she seems to hate brown people enough that it clouds her judgement. Illegal immigrants get licenses for a very simple reason here: so they can get insurance -- so that the rest of us don't pay absurd[er] premiums.)
After campaigning on a promise to balance the budget without cutting education say "oh, never mind, we might have to cut education" within a week of being elected.
Now she's instituting this? I can't imagine it'll be cheap either.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Republicans talk a big talk on fiscal responsibility, but can't walk the walk unless it's going to help them shit on the heads of poor people. All promises of fiscal responsibility also go right out the window when it comes to chances to edge closer to a police state or go to war.
Porquoi?