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.

17 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 DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the police arrest you, they still need a warrant to search your home.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:Should have been obvious all along by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not everyone that gets arrested is arrested for an outstanding warrant. You can be arrested for 'Obstructing Justice' for taking a video of police beating an unarmed man as an example. Whether the courts will see it that way or not is another argument, but a police officer can essentially arrest you for anything they want, whenever they want. Unlawful arrest charges against cops are virtually unheard of.

    4. Re:Should have been obvious all along by msauve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How does this differ from collecting fingerprints at arrest? Because they draw blood (I'm assuming that's what they do)? How about if they brush their hair, and keep some follicles?

      At least in my state, fingerprints are collected upon arrest, but are supposed to be destroyed if there is no conviction.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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!
    9. Re:Should have been obvious all along by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because your genes can tell a LOT more about you than just your fingerprints. DNA is more than identification.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    10. 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. Arrest?!? Did they really think that would stand? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apparently, they did at least try to specify, initially, that they could only keep these DNA profiles for 2 years. But then they stripped even that restriction of any teeth by allowing the lab to keep it indefinitely (based only on the assurance by the arresting cops that the suspect was still part of an "ongoing investigation") and absolving the lab of any legal penalties for not purging profiles from the database (or any defendant from claiming in his defense that his sample should have been purged).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. 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"!

  4. Re:This is about government power by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nope.
    The Republicans are just the opposite side of the same "Government Power" coin.
    Republicans and Democrats do not differ in how much power they want the government to have. Only on who should benefit the most.
    Big Businesses and Super Rich or Labor Unions and Lawyers.

    Personally I do not trust either for shit.
    People have to stand up and take responsibility for their own lives first and then remove themselves from the government teat.
    Once we no longer need the government to provide for our finances we can take away their power over us.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  5. Re:Suspicion comes before arrest? by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the person is arrested and there is compelling evidence, the court might allow for a DNA sample to be taken and compared against cases where there is a reasonable suspicion. Arresting someone (which can be done at-will, for almost any reason), so that the police can expand their DNA database and hope that the DNA search will turn up a match for some crime in which they previously had no suspicion is a pretty far reach and is sloppy police work. The issue is the burden in which the police need to draw the sample (ought to be more than the burden for arrest), the retention and maintenance of the data, and to what extent the police can use the DNA to try to develop further charges in which there is no reasonable suspicion.

    --
    Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
  6. Proposition 69... by cobrausn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is poorly named unless the police also have to give a DNA sample to the arrested.

    --
    How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
  7. Re:Arrest?!? Did they really think that would stan by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes. We'd like to talk to you about that. We're really upset that you keep flipping the bird at us. We're just doing our job (and we've noticed you aren't doing yours - hanging out on Slashdot all day).

    -- your friends from some undisclosed Government Agency

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!