Supreme Court Will Review Md. DNA Law

[Wizard777]

The State is presenting hollow arguments.

Lawyers for the federal government and Maryland argued that taking DNA at the time of arrest can help make bail decisions.

So if someone is arrested for a felony like burglary. It is imperative that the police be able to ignore the Fourth Amendment to gather evidence that may or may not lead to the discovery of past crimes, like raping and killing 50 children, for the purposes of bail. But if this same person is arrested for a misdemeanor like trespassing the fact that they have previously raped and killed 50 children isn't really a concern that needs to be adressed at a bail hearing. If it is then down the slippery slope we go. Hey! Remember when a guy here in Maryland was pulled over for speeding and a couple of days later he crashed a plane into the WTC. So now were gonn a need DNA for traffic violations too. Farther down that slippery slope we go. You see that new born terrorist thug laying there in the hospital bassinet. You know damned well it's not a matter of if he will commit a crime in his life. It's only a matter of when he will commit that crime. Lets get his DNA and hang that sword of Damocles over his head RIGHT NOW. Farther down that slippery slope we go. It's just a ANOTHER generalized search for evidence of no particular crime that may or may not have occured. Thank God in 2013 SCOTUS overturned the Fourth Amendment and restored the Writ Assisstance to make all this legal.

Chief Deputy Maryland Attorney General Katherine Winfree conceded that it currently takes between 11 and 17 days to analyze DNA, but the information could still be used to modify bail decisions. She added that the FBI estimates that within two to four years it will be possible for police to analyze DNA profiles within 90 minutes.

The technology is "not science fiction," she said. "This is the finger printing of the 21st century, but it is better."

You know what else is not science fiction? The ability for the police to pull over a car and apply for search warrant right there on the side of the road. But have they developed and utilized this technology? NO! The only interest the state and police have is expanding their police powers. Never restoring lost freedoms. That's not their job. That's something better left to SCOTUS. In this continuous struggle to expand their police powers the Bill of Rights is their sworn enemy. So they will not develope and utilize this technology until SCOTUS overturns the Carroll Doctrine. Once SCOTUS has determined that because of modern technology the exigent circumstances that the Carroll Doctrine was based upon no longer exist and over turn it. Thereby restoring a previously lost right to be free from warrantless searches. Then every police car computer in the country will have videophones with wifi connections to the magistrates office and warrant applications by the end of the month. But not until SCOTUS overturns the Carroll Doctine. Until then the State and police will be happy to have that technology remain a piece of science fiction with the potential to infringe thier police powers.

I think SCOTUS needs to preserve current protections and work on restoring lost protections. The protection against general searches and seizures is one of the few, if not only, forth amendment protection that remains.

[Wizard777]

The above link has been updated. More information has been added.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned whether people expected privacy when it comes to their genetic material. Taking a swig of water in a police interview room would lead to DNA's being left behind, he said.

Yes, people have a expectation of privacy when it comes to their DNA. The expect to to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also expect to be secure in the very thing that makes them the person they are. That is their DNA. If the government also didn't think that people had a reasonable right to the expectation of privacy in their DNA. The information in the DNA database would be publicly accessable documents. If the Governments true intent was use this for identification purposes. They would be collecting DNA at the police station from all arrestees. Not just those charged with felonies. They would also be collecting it at the DMV for driver licenses and age of majority cards. They would be collecting it at hospitals as part of a birth certificate instead of babies footprints.

As for the water bottle analogy. If the bottle is thrown away it's abondoned property and thee is no expectation of privacy. If the person preserves their property interest in the bottle. Get a warrant. But the whole reason for using the bottle trick is because you don't have probable cause to get a warrant. The reason the police want to collect DNA in this manner is because they don't have probable cause related to a specific case to get a warrant with. So they're using DNA collection upon arrest to go fishing and see what they can catch.

And Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested that fingerprinting was in some ways a more invasive process than the cheek swab Maryland officials use to collect genetic information.

There is no entry to any part of the body required to gather finerprints. So it cannot possibly be INvasive or INtrusive. It would be EXtrusive. The collection of DNA by swabing the inside of the cheek requires entry into the body and is therefore INvasive and INtrusive.

But Alito said the convictions were worthwhile.
"So this is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be … solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy," he added.

Back to the basics of the fourth amendment. Any search or or seizure conducted without a warrant is prima facie unreasobable. To overcome the resonable expectation of privacy the police must be able to articulate probable cause relating to a specific person, specific place, specific evidence and this must be related to a specific crime. The amount of intrusion has very little to do with the burden. If an officer can articulate proper probable cause including satifying the safe entry and exit doctrine. They can have a doctor put you under and cut you wide open to seize contraband from your intestines. But this only applies to contraband. DNA is not contraband at the time the DNA Evidence is being seized. They have no idea what crime if any the evidence is related to. So they cannot possibly have probable cause to seize it. Yes this technology is a powerful new tool. I would even go as far as calling it dynamite. It's bad enough the police are fishing. But the court cannot allow them to fish with dynamite. One little mistake like putting the wrong name on the wrong sample and someone could get hurt really bad.

[Wizard777]

Police in Md. holding DNA on people not convicted of crimes

Even as the U.S Supreme Court reviews Maryland's law on police collection of DNA samples, many law enforcement agencies in the state are collecting and holding genetic material from murder victims and people never convicted of crimes.

The practices have raised concerns among some legislators and the public defender's office, who fought for privacy protections and other restrictions in a 2009 state law that allows DNA collection from people arrested on suspicion of serious crimes.

Now, those critics say, police are taking advantage of loopholes and using the genetic material in ways not contemplated by state law. The objections have emerged at a crucial moment for the law, which is up for renewal in Annapolis this year and was argued this week before the nation's highest court.

[Wizard777]

Lawmakers will push for DNA collection changes

The Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland is pushing legislation to close what it describes as loopholes in state law that allow police to keep DNA samples from people never convicted of crimes.

Del. Jill P. Carter, a Baltimore Democrat, said Friday she is preparing — with caucus backing — to introduce a bill that would subject all DNA collected by Maryland police to the restrictive standards used for genetic information taken from people charged with violent crimes and burglaries.

The 2009 law that authorized collection upon arrest made clear that genetic information must be thrown out when suspects are acquitted or their cases are dropped. Critics have complained that DNA taken in other circumstances — including under warrants issued by judges — can be retained indefinitely, regardless of whether suspects are found guilty.

All in all I think it's a pretty good bill. Familial profiles should be prohibited from all uses. I still don't agree with collecting DNA to be used as evidence without a warrant before a conviction. I also think the DNA of all dead people could and should be used to close cases. Once you are dead you can nolonger be harmed and your rights are severely dimished. It also serves a greater purpose in Justice. By using the DNA of the dead to close old unsolved cases it eliminates even the potential of someone being wrongly arrested, tried and convicted of that crime. I wouldn't deprive the living of that protection from even a potential miscarriage of justice.