House Panel OKs collecting DNA upon felony arrest

[cbhausen]

Figures, Steuerwald is my Representative... and I hope to meet him later today. Sounds like we might have two things to talk about now.

 

[Denny347]

It's physically invasive and actually removes a small physical portion of your body.

Let's not overstate that part. It's a bocal swab against the inside of your cheek. Spit and skin cells are what is collected.

The other 2 don't. I don't know if that meets the substantially part, but that is a clear distinction.
And I'm not sure that yo can use fingerprints to plant fingerprints......

Sure you can, haven't you been watching any movies?

 

[HoughMade]

...And I'm not sure that yo can use fingerprints to plant fingerprints......

It would be quite difficult to plant DNA from the buccal swab that would be reliably detected. They can't manufacture more. Also, what is stored is the DNA results, or pattern.

I don't think the fear of someone in law enforcement using the sample to frame you is much of a concern, in reality.

 

[Denny347]

It would be quite difficult to plant DNA from the buccal swab that would be reliably detected. They can't manufacture more. Also, what is stored is the DNA results, or pattern.

I don't think the fear of someone in law enforcement using the sample to frame you is much of a concern, in reality.

 

[MCgrease08]

Denny gives out the Denny Award. So glad to have witnessed this moment.

 

[gregr]

Government gets more and more intrusive, and we allow it.

 

[KLB]

Denny gives out the Denny Award. So glad to have witnessed this moment.

That makes it much more special than a regular old Denny award.

 

[JTScribe]

Figures, Steuerwald is my Representative... and I hope to meet him later today. Sounds like we might have two things to talk about now.

How'd the meeting end up?

My big question is, do they delete the information if you're found not guilty?

 

[russc2542]

It would be quite difficult to plant DNA from the buccal swab that would be reliably detected. They can't manufacture more. Also, what is stored is the DNA results, or pattern.

I don't think the fear of someone in law enforcement using the sample to frame you is much of a concern, in reality.

​YET

 

[Kirk Freeman]

​YET

Has it been done with fingerprints? Not counting Mayfield as that was just flat out error.

 

[HoughMade]

Has it been done with fingerprints? Not counting Mayfield as that was just flat out error.

Look, I've seen on TV how to transfer fingerprints with everything from Scotch tape to Silly Putty. Manufacturing DNA to match a specific profile? That's a little deeper pull...
FOR NOW.

 

[traderdan]

Tell me that you freedom lovers are not arguing that "since we already have...we might as well go ahead and have..." on this issue...!

 

[gregr]

Tell me that you freedom lovers are not arguing that "since we already have...we might as well go ahead and have..." on this issue...!

This is in no way even close to the same as a mug shot or fingerprints, and it`s 100% unacceptable, period.

 

[HoughMade]

Tell me that you freedom lovers are not arguing that "since we already have...we might as well go ahead and have..." on this issue...!

I don't know that anyone came close to saying that. It's just that I prefer to be for or against something based upon rational facts, not imaginary bogey men.

 

[Route 45]

Viscerally, I don't like this...but intellectually, I'm trying to figure out how this is substantially different from fingerprinting and mug shots.

I don't think that it is. It's simply another identification tool, like fingerprints or mugshots. I don't have a problem with this for at least arrests for violent felonies where probable cause has been found and charges are actually filed. DNA is not as private as most people think. Most people leave trace DNA on anything they touch, especially if the surface of the object being handled is textured. I'd like to see someone explain how this is radically different than taking fingerprints or a mugshot, maybe I would change my mind.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't know that anyone came close to saying that. It's just that I prefer to be for or against something based upon rational facts, not imaginary bogey men.

I see you are new to INGO.

But, yeah, put me down as anything that CAN be abused by the government WILL be abused by the government.

 

[gregr]

I don't think that it is. It's simply another identification tool, like fingerprints or mugshots. I don't have a problem with this for at least arrests for violent felonies where probable cause has been found and charges are actually filed. DNA is not as private as most people think. Most people leave trace DNA on anything they touch, especially if the surface of the object being handled is textured. I'd like to see someone explain how this is radically different than taking fingerprints or a mugshot, maybe I would change my mind.

For conviction...yeah, probably. For an arrest? HELL no! Anyone can be accused of, and arrested for anything. You wanna live in Nazi Germany? Have a great time. NOT me!

 

[CampingJosh]

Wait a second, guys. DNA swab on felony conviction *even if reduced*? Maybe for a violent felony, but do we really need a DNA sample from the Martha Stewart types?

I think you're right here.

But I also think that the list of felonies has gotten well out of hand.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'd like to see someone explain how this is radically different than taking fingerprints or a mugshot, maybe I would change my mind.

.
It isn't. It's used for identification. The tests for genetic diseases, to clone you and use the clone as a hit man, etc. are all radically different (and more expensive, and more time consuming) than comparison tests for identification. Your DNA isn't "sequenced" or decoded. A test is done for certain markers at certain points in the chain, and then that information is stored. It's impossible to take that information and extrapolate if you're going to have a hereditary disease, etc.

Most people leave trace DNA on anything they touch, especially if the surface of the object being handled is textured.

Eh, sort of. You might leave some traces, but not enough to do anything useful with as far as comparison. Touch DNA is tough. Guns actually do seem to be a good source, though, perhaps the recoil and texture combination sheers off more skin cells. I'm just guessing, though, that's beyond my pay grade.

 

[Route 45]

For conviction...yeah, probably. For an arrest? HELL no! Anyone can be accused of, and arrested for anything. You wanna live in Nazi Germany? Have a great time. NOT me!

Saying that "anyone can be arrested for anything" is like saying that anyone who buys a lottery ticket can hit the lottery. While technically true in the purest sense, it's a useless statement because of the odds. I'm thinking that my chances of getting arrested for a violent felony is extremely low. Those in the habit of rapin', robbin' and murderin' have a far better chance of arrest than your typical law-abiding citizen.

I knew that Godwin would show up in this thread. Please tell me how the collection of DNA from felony suspects will inevitably lead to the extermination of millions of people by the government.