Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California DNA Collection Law Struck Down

Posted by Unknown on from the mark-of-the-beast dept.

wiedzmin writes with an article in Wired about DNA collection from criminals in California. From the article: "A California appeals court is striking down a voter-approved measure requiring every adult arrested on a felony charge to submit a DNA sample. The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Proposition 69 amounted to unconstitutional, warrantless searches of arrestees. More than 1.6 million samples have been taken following the law's 2009 implementation. Only about a half of those arrested in California are convicted." Note that the State can still appeal the ruling; according to the article, the Attorney General's office has made no comment as to whether they will do so.

9 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Should have been obvious all along by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Arrest != Conviction

    The appeals court made the correct ruling. Now they just need to order all of the samples destroyed.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    1. Re:Should have been obvious all along by trunicated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Voter can't tell the difference between "accused" and "convicted".

      --
      There's a reason there is no "Disagree" mod...
    2. Re:Should have been obvious all along by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Arrest != Conviction

      Law enforcement and legislators haven't been able to see the distinction for a long time. It's a wonder we still have courts.

    3. Re:Should have been obvious all along by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty big difference between being searched and having your DNA profile scanned and put into a database indefinitely (where it can functionally stay indefinitely whether you're convicted, never prosecuted, or even if you've been found innocent).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Should have been obvious all along by Wansu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Voter can't tell the difference between "accused" and "convicted".

      Many of them don't care about the difference between accused and convicted.

      --
      Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    5. Re:Should have been obvious all along by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They wouldn't have been arrested if they weren't guilty...

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:Should have been obvious all along by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With my genetic code, anyone could grow an exact replica of my genitals, and those are my privates by name and definition, damn it!

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    7. Re:Should have been obvious all along by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unreasonable is a pretty slippery word

      Exactly wrong. Unreasonable isn't slippery at all, at least, not in the case of search. It's defined right in the 4th amendment, quite specifically. Go read it.

      Also, the courts have no authority to abrogate the meaning of the 4th amendment. Article three awards the power to judge guilty or not; it does not award the power to alter. That is limited to article five. This is simply the government acting out of the bounds of its authorization, exerting, in this case, power that was explicitly forbidden to it.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. slashdot fail by jalfrock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The introductory comment says it's about "DNA collection from criminals". The whole point is that half of these people are *not* "criminals"!