Md. High Court Strikes Down DNA Collection At Arrest

[Wizard777]

Baltimore County to stop post-arrest DNA sample collection

Baltimore County police will stop collecting DNA samples when they arrest suspects on violent crime or burglary charges, following a ruling earlier this week from the state's highest court that found the practice unconstitutional.

Police Chief James Johnson said Friday his officer's will halt the practice immediately.

"Our job is public safety, and DNA collection is an invaluable tool for helping us protect citizens from criminals," Johnson said in a statement. "I have serious concerns about this ruling."

I'm glad to see someone knows how to comply with what is now the law. But there are two problems an appeal will have at SCOTUS. There are no exegent circumstances. Even if exegent circumstances are constutionally illegal. The suspect is in jail so there is no risk of flight and there is no danger of the evidence being destroyed. Get a Warrant!

I expect Maryland to rise above and lead the way. But on this they are sinking to unconstitutional depths. One area in DNA where Maryland rises above to lead the way. We are the ONLY state that does not allow the use of partial matches. We could catch a whole lot more criminals using partial DNA. Because when we take someones DNA we not only have their DNA. But we also have parts of their families DNA. So we can not only get that person. But also every crook in their family.

[Red Baron]

Exactly, I don't see the difference- photos, hell, even names and all other identifiers as well.

Seems to me dna is merely a more sophisticated identification means, and we've been collecting & storing more rudimentary identification types---- the dna would even help the accused, as it can rule suspects out as well as in.

Legally, fingerprinting is a means of identifying a person immediately. DNA cannot do that for weeks, despite what you see on CSI.

They are not really comparable as far as identification goes.

This one is a toughie. I can see both sides. It's shown it can be a very valuable tool, but is it a slippery slope?

[signal13]

DNA is only collected upon arrest only if you are charged with an enumerated violent felony, not all felonies. Furthermore, if your DNA were ever to be identified in a cold case hit, a search warrant is ALWAYS obtained in order to obtain a second sample of DNA for further comparison. There are checks and balances in place. The pros far outweigh the cons as far as I'm concerned. Many unsolved rapes and murders have been cleared in this state and nationally due to this database. These are animals that I don't want walking around free so that one of my family members can be their next victim. The only ones that should be worried about this are the vermin that are out there committing violent crimes. I couldn't care less if they had everyone's DNA on file (including mine). It's not any different in my mind than having someone's fingerprints on file..only a much more reliable means of identification. It's only a matter of time until the state wins an appeal and it's business as usual. This law is meant to protect you and your families from scum. It's not a conspiracy people. Wiz..You're sidewalk lawyer routine is amusing to me though

[Saticon3]

Legally, fingerprinting is a means of identifying a person immediately. DNA cannot do that for weeks, despite what you see on CSI.

They are not really comparable as far as identification goes.

This one is a toughie. I can see both sides. It's shown it can be a very valuable tool, but is it a slippery slope?

IMHO, the "slippery slope " argument is always the weakest possible point to make against something. We as a society and in laws draw lines all the time. Examples:
why is it ok for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old but not a 15 year old? Aren't we starting a slippery slope towards 15 and younger by allowing it at 15? Why 21 for alcohol? Why 26 mph ( or more) for speeding? We could go on and on.

Fingerprints were'nt always so instanteous either, I recall the days when they had to be sent off too like DNA is now and at times took a few weeks as well.

[Wizard777]

Legally, fingerprinting is a means of identifying a person immediately. DNA cannot do that for weeks, despite what you see on CSI.

They are not really comparable as far as identification goes.

This one is a toughie. I can see both sides. It's shown it can be a very valuable tool, but is it a slippery slope?

What do you mean is it a slippery slope? This isn't the top of the slope we're half way down the slope. The top of the slippery slope was way back when they were wanting to take DNA without a warrant from people who had been convicted of certain crime. Now they wanting to take DNA without a warrant from people arrested for certain crimes. Next they'll to take DNA without a warrant from people suspected of certain crimes.

Then some genius is going to figure out that the REAL problem is that they are using DNA to catch up with crimes that have already been committed. DNA is at it's most effective use as a deterant in crime prevention. They'll want everyones DNA at birth. Then instead of having a mobile hanging over the craddle. Every child will have the Sword of Damocles hanging over the craddle just waiting for baby to commit their first crime.

[Wizard777]

DNA is only collected upon arrest only if you are charged with an enumerated violent felony, not all felonies. Furthermore, if your DNA were ever to be identified in a cold case hit, a search warrant is ALWAYS obtained in order to obtain a second sample of DNA for further comparison. There are checks and balances in place. The pros far outweigh the cons as far as I'm concerned. Many unsolved rapes and murders have been cleared in this state and nationally due to this database. These are animals that I don't want walking around free so that one of my family members can be their next victim. The only ones that should be worried about this are the vermin that are out there committing violent crimes. I couldn't care less if they had everyone's DNA on file (including mine). It's not any different in my mind than having someone's fingerprints on file..only a much more reliable means of identification. It's only a matter of time until the state wins an appeal and it's business as usual. This law is meant to protect you and your families from scum. It's not a conspiracy people. Wiz..You're sidewalk lawyer routine is amusing to me though

It would be fruits of a poisonous tree. What you described would be no different than the police searching someones home without a warrant and finding drugs and then applying for a warrant after they found the drugs. If you can get a warrant for that second sample then you can get a warrant on the first one too. If you don't anything that comes from that sample is fruits of a poisonous tree.

What is the compelling government interest? This will not survive strict scrutiny because the government is wanting to do away with the warrant requirement and probable cause to conduct what would be general seizures.

[Wizard777]

Another problem that the state will have at SCOTUS is that the Maryland Constiution specifically prohibits these kinds of general warrants.

Art. 26. That all warrants, without oath or affirmation, to search suspected places, or to seize any person or property, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend suspected persons, without naming or describing the place, or the person in special, are illegal, and ought not to be granted.

[uche]

people in the USA have become so spiteful and hateful. They've abandoned the idea of being left alone. Now they believe in Pre-crime. Go after people who even look like they might be thinking about committing a crime. For those people, it would a fitting thing if they could communicate with their grandchildren to learn about the new laws that control when and who you can date. where you are allowed to be on the street and what activity you are allowed under the law to engage in least you be charged with "looking like a possible law breaker".

[signal13]

people in the USA have become so spiteful and hateful. They've abandoned the idea of being left alone. Now they believe in Pre-crime. Go after people who even look like they might be thinking about committing a crime. For those people, it would a fitting thing if they could communicate with their grandchildren to learn about the new laws that control when and who you can date. where you are allowed to be on the street and what activity you are allowed under the law to engage in least you be charged with "looking like a possible law breaker".

Huh???? Am I the only one left scratching their head here?

[signal13]

It would be fruits of a poisonous tree. What you described would be no different than the police searching someones home without a warrant and finding drugs and then applying for a warrant after they found the drugs. If you can get a warrant for that second sample then you can get a warrant on the first one too. If you don't anything that comes from that sample is fruits of a poisonous tree.

What is the compelling government interest? This will not survive strict scrutiny because the government is wanting to do away with the warrant requirement and probable cause to conduct what would be general seizures.

Yes Wiz, I know what "fruits of the poisonous tree" are. Unlike you though, I didn't have to look it up in a law book to regurgitate to this forum. I deal with it every day. There is a major difference from the scenario you described above. It's not considered fruits when the initial collection was permissible by law.

[Wizard777]

Yes Wiz, I know what "fruits of the poisonous tree" are. Unlike you though, I didn't have to look it up in a law book to regurgitate to this forum. I deal with it every day. There is a major difference from the scenario you described above. It's not considered fruits when the initial collection was permissible by law.

Good for you! Then you should have no problems understanding why the court said this is law is not permissible.

[Saticon3]

It's fine to debate the legalities, but let's just take a moment and consider what this ruling just did---- we have a convicted rapist who does not dispute that he committed the rape, only that he was caught unfairly, and he is now free. We don't know yet how many others will be set free.

[yuca]

It's fine to debate the legalities, but let's just take a moment and consider what this ruling just did---- we have a convicted rapist who does not dispute that he committed the rape, only that he was caught unfairly, and he is now free. We don't know yet how many others will be set free.

Frightening, isn't it? It's sad that Wiz is rejoicing this.

I guess it's "unreasonable" to assume that someone who has been arrested for a felony may have committed other crimes for which he wasn't caught.

[Wizard777]

It's fine to debate the legalities, but let's just take a moment and consider what this ruling just did---- we have a convicted rapist who does not dispute that he committed the rape, only that he was caught unfairly, and he is now free. We don't know yet how many others will be set free.

If our founders actually intended for every person that violated the law to be caught tried, convicted and punished. Then why even bother with a warrant requirement with limitations placed on the ability to get that warrant? Why not just keep the Writ of Assistance that would allow authorities to search or seize any place or anyone for no reason? What a great law enforcement tool that Writ of Assistance was. Criminals could run but they couldn't hide anything, including themselves.

So by the very existance of Article 26 and the Fourth Amendment we know that the founders of Maryland and America believed that concept of a fair way of catching criminals was valid. Why should the people uphold the values in the Constitutions if the government themselves will not do that? Just as people always have a poor exscuse for violating the law. So too will the government always have a poor exscuse for violating the Constitution.

The greatest irony of this that the court has found that the Legislature and Governor have violated Constitutional law. Yet those criminals will never have to worry about spending a single second in jail for their crime against freedom and liberty.

[Wizard777]

Frightening, isn't it? It's sad that Wiz is rejoicing this.

I guess it's "unreasonable" to assume that someone who has been arrested for a felony may have committed other crimes for which he wasn't caught.

So you favor the DNA dragnet? Then why not take it at birth as a very effective crime prevention tool? Instead of merely catching rapists and murderers. Why wouldn't you want to prevent those rapes and murders by hanging the Sword of Damocles over the head of new born babe? If you oppose collection at birth. Then you are essentially saying that every child has the right to grow up and commit a rape or murder. How do you explain that to the victim or their family?

The problem, if one really exists, is that we're trying to catch up to the criminal instead of getting ahead of them and laying in wait. If the state takes DNA at birth and that child grows up to commit a rape or murder at 13. The police would have a 13 year head start on that criminal. What a great parenting tool that would be. Parents could tell their children straight out. You better obey every law. Don't think you will get away with any crimes. You're 8 y/o and that means the police now have an 8 year head start on any crime you commit. Never ever forget that you have been a suspect since the day you were born. Why not? The problem with a DNA dragnet is that nets have holes in them that criminals can escape through. We need to build a DNA Wall.

Also, what would the law Enforcement Community do if the police had seized Francis Crick's LSD and arrested him? He never would have envsioned the DNA double helix. There would be no such thing as a DNA test. How would the police catch criminals then? That's without debating if the fruits of that Psychedelic Tree are Poisonus or just Groovy man. DNA essentially forms the testimony of a Tripping Hippie.

[Wizard777]

The greatest part about criminal genetic databases is they provide tons of criminal genetic information to be analysed at some point in time to issolate the ever elusive criminal gene and criminal genetic traits. Once these criminal genetic traits are issolated and confirmed. That will really streamline the American Justice System. Because then we can replace the courts with DNA tests and preventative detention. Then when a child is born a DNA test will be administered. If the results come back guilty. The child can be tranfered from the nursery to reform school for gene therapy. Because it won't be a matter of if the child will commit a crime. Only when that child will commit the crime they are genetically predisposed to. This is the part that should really give you the warm fuzzies.

The Criminal Gene is brought to you by the fine manufactures of Reefer Madness.

[Saticon3]

I have a question which I have not seen in the news about it--- the defendant in this case had his DNA taken when he was arrested for 1st degree assault ( and other lesser included charges) which prompted his DNA collection. Later, his DNA was found to be a match for the rape suspect, unrelated case to the 1st degree assault.

My question: What happened with the First Degree Assault? Is it still pending, was he convicted or found NG? If convicted, it would seem to have rendered his appeal moot, as I don't think anyone has a problem with collecting DNA from convicted criminals.

By moot, I don't mean legally, but rather common-sense wise and would even add insult to the injury.

[Saticon3]

.

The greatest irony of this that the court has found that the Legislature and Governor have violated Constitutional law. Yet those criminals will never have to worry about spending a single second in jail for their crime against freedom and liberty.

You can't go back and punish people for actions invalidated by appellate courts, that would be nuts. First of all, the DNA collection was not unconstitutional until it was successfully appealed, before that it was duly enacted law of the land. Courts would never get around to new cases if they had to go back and prosecute people's actions invlaidated on constitutional grounds on appeal.

Prior to Tenn. vs. Garner, it was perfectly ok for a cop to shoot a fleeing check forger. It was also perfectly ok to get a confession without fully adviisng of rights prior to Miranda.

[Wizard777]

You can't go back and punish people for actions invalidated by appellate courts, that would be nuts. First of all, the DNA collection was not unconstitutional until it was successfully appealed, before that it was duly enacted law of the land. Courts would never get around to new cases if they had to go back and prosecute people's actions invlaidated on constitutional grounds on appeal.

Prior to Tenn. vs. Garner, it was perfectly ok for a cop to shoot a fleeing check forger. It was also perfectly ok to get a confession without fully adviisng of rights prior to Miranda.

You complettely missed the point on that.

[Saticon3]

You complettely missed the point on that.

Hey, but I changed my mind anyway, if it would land O'Malley in jail, I'm all for it, I'd let 100 rapists go free in exchange for O'malley in jail, as he is raping MD and will continue to do so for a long, long time.