Big Brother and Criminal Law: Bill Requiring Everyone Arrested for a Felony to Submit

[4sarge]

Big Brother and Criminal Law: Bill Requiring Everyone Arrested for a Felony to Submit DNA Sample


Senate Bill 24, authored by Senator Joseph Zakas R-Evansville, would require that anyone who is arrested for a felony be required to submit a DNA sample. The bill, which was originally assigned to the Rules Committee, was amended, and has been reassigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The application of this requirement to mere arrestees to me smacks of the worst kind of Big Brotherism. If you were talking about people who had been convicted of a felony that would one thing. But this bill would apply the DNA requirement to people who are merely accused of a felony. Our law firm handles criminal cases and we are constantly seeing individuals who are innocent being charged with felonies only to have those charges later dropped for lack of merit.

The Marion County Prosecutor's Office in particular does a poor job of screening cases before filing criminal charges. I had one client involved in a domestic dispute who was charged with felony battery for supposedly hitting her husband in front of their child. The case was so weak that the Prosecutor's Office at the end was offering to dismiss the charges completely in return for diversion. Then, in another case, recounted here on these pages, I had a mentally handicapped client who was charged with felony robbery based solely on one clerk's statement. During the time of the "robbery" though he and his brother, had gone across town to eat lunch, a fact captured on several surveillance cameras.

To me, simply being a accused of a felony is insufficient to require that someone submit DNA as part of a criminal database. While the bill only provides that the DNA will be used by local officials, what prevents the person's DNA from being put into a national database? This is a Big Brother reform that we do not need.

 

[jontheturboguy]

Scurry sh!t! Now how do we stop this? As much as I love Indiana, we have some pretty weak qualifications of receiving a felony.

 

[homeless]

How can any one be so self rightious to even support this, let alone be the one to suggest it? Every day when I strap on my gun belt, I assume that I might have to pull it, that I might have to use it, and as a result that I would be arrested and charged. This is a threat to me, and to every citizen who comes into contact with another citizen. Even the idea of this is another horrendous example of Government Abuse. This must end, Indiana cannot afford the lawsuits that it will fight if this passes.

 

[Ashkelon]

I haven't looked at the text of the bill yet but I am willing to bet there are no provisions for removing data if an individual is exonerated.
Big difference between guilt and innocence. My gravest concern are those cases with spurious allegations and felony arrests are made yet the case is only filed as a misdemeanor.

My bet - Many arrests will be elevated to felonies at book in just to get the DNA sample and then the prosecutor will file misdemeanor charges. AFTER the DNA is run through database.

Scary as hell. When you look at recent US Supremes decisions and now support for something like this ----whew!

 

[homeless]

Scurry sh!t! Now how do we stop this? As much as I love Indiana, we have some pretty weak qualifications of receiving a felony.

We fight this as we fight all bad laws. We write e-mails, we write letters, we call our legislaters. We tell every one we know, we bitch to the news agencies. This is how the system is supposed to work, you tell the guy you elected what to do. Remember the voters are the bosses here not the fools in the suits. We remind them of that. Some times it works, some times it doesn't.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Let's think about this a minute...

We have finger printed people who have been arrested for DECADES!!!

What is the difference?

We have used finger prints to identify criminals. IF you do not commit a crime then generally speaking you are not fingerprinted (there are exceptions of course).

So, now we have a more accurate means of identification, DNA.

I would like to see it changed so that it is NOT anyone who has been arrested but rather anyone convicted and sentenced to jail time and/or prison time. After all, we have fingerprinted convicted criminals for years.

Besides, DNA can, and often is, used to prove someones innocence.

The use of DNA identification is only a change in technology and not a new infringement.

Respectfully,

Doug

 

[homeless]

Who said I liked the idea of fingerprinting those arrested of crimes? Just because Big Brother does it, does not make it either constitutional or moral.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sounds pretty expensive running all those samples. Thought the state was in a budget problem. See this article for a in-depth analysis.

 

[Ashkelon]

DNA fingerprinting has low chances for false positives but we are talking cell identification so hereditary concerns are an issue with criminal rates being statistically liked along familial lines. Note all the crime lab convictions that have been turned over due to bad science or poor handling of samples. I don't know how to feel other than it seems wrong and usually that is enough for me

 

[96harley]

Anytime the government offers security or what appears to be a better prospect for the good of society, we LOSE LIBERTIES.

 

[4sarge]

DNA fingerprinting has low chances for false positives but we are talking cell identification so hereditary concerns are an issue with criminal rates being statistically liked along familial lines. Note all the crime lab convictions that have been turned over due to bad science or poor handling of samples. I don't know how to feel other than it seems wrong and usually that is enough for me

Fingerprinting is done for Identification purposes and now to some extent with AFIS crime solving. DNA information encompasses much more information that what is needed for Identification purposes. I do not feel that an arrest justifies DNA collection, conviction maybe especially for sex crimes where a DNA sample may be pertinent to an unsolved crime.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Let me clarify in no uncertain terms that I do NOT support the government keeping ANY information of an innocent person. A person who has been CONVICTED may be a different story.

homeless, I agree that just because they do it doesn't make it right. I just want people to consider what we take for granted and that DNA analysis is simply identification that is superior to fingerprints.

This article does make me think. We covered this briefly on the "convicted felon and guns" thread.

Does the government have a responsibility to protect us? I believe so. Their responsibility does NOT replace any responsibility citizens have to protect themselves, but the government has it as well.

In doing its service the government has the right to use all means available to apprehend and incarcerate criminals without violating anyone's guaranteed liberties.

So, the question becomes: Do we have a right to privacy AND if so how far does that right extend? There is no Constitutional clause that guarantees our right to privacy. It doesn't mean we don't have one, but it is not recognized. As a matter of fact courts have ruled time and again that law enforcement may demand identification. Census takers gather basic information as to who (by name) is living in a certain location.

I'll have to think about this one some more.

Doug

 

[SigSense]

Every troop in the Army/Navy/USAF/Marines has had to provide their DNA.....

 

[4sarge]

To All,

Let me clarify in no uncertain terms that I do NOT support the government keeping ANY information of an innocent person. A person who has been CONVICTED may be a different story.

homeless, I agree that just because they do it doesn't make it right. I just want people to consider what we take for granted and that DNA analysis is simply identification that is superior to fingerprints.

This article does make me think. We covered this briefly on the "convicted felon and guns" thread.

Does the government have a responsibility to protect us? I believe so. Their responsibility does NOT replace any responsibility citizens have to protect themselves, but the government has it as well.

In doing its service the government has the right to use all means available to apprehend and incarcerate criminals without violating anyone's guaranteed liberties.

So, the question becomes: Do we have a right to privacy AND if so how far does that right extend? There is no Constitutional clause that guarantees our right to privacy. It doesn't mean we don't have one, but it is not recognized. As a matter of fact courts have ruled time and again that law enforcement may demand identification. Census takers gather basic information as to who (by name) is living in a certain location.

I'll have to think about this one some more.

Doug

Every troop in the Army/Navy/USAF/Marines has had to provide their DNA.....

DNA for Identification purposes is only needed for decomposing bodies, or where finger print ID isn't available and or dental records cannot be used.

DNA is not necessary for normal Identification purposes. DNA contains entirely too much personal and family information that isn't necessary for normal criminal prosecution.

You have the right under the US Constitution to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure without warrant or court order. Fourth Amendment

By Supreme Court Decision the Police have no duty to protect you

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

and neither does the Federal Government except from Foreign Invaders.


IMO this is a bad law, invasive and not needed for ID purposes. I agree, a convicted felon's DNA for crime solving may be necessary but only with a court order.

 

[Ashkelon]

What this is referring to is "DNA fingerprinting". We should not mix the two as they are exclusive. DNA fingerprinting is the determination of a oh forget it.....it is just a bad bill. Let us pray it doesn't go through...

 

[4sarge]

Problems With DNA Fingerprinting

Problems With DNA Fingerprinting

Like nearly everything else in the scientific world, nothing about DNA fingerprinting is 100% assured. The term DNA fingerprint is, in one sense, a misnomer: it implies that, like a fingerprint, the VNTR pattern for a given person is utterly and completely unique to that person. Actually, all that a VNTR pattern can do is present a probability that the person in question is indeed the person to whom the VNTR pattern (of the child, the criminal evidence, or whatever else) belongs. Given, that probability might be 1 in 20 billion, which would indicate that the person can be reasonably matched with the DNA fingerprint; then again, that probability might only be 1 in 20, leaving a large amount of doubt regarding the specific identity of the VNTR pattern's owner.
1. Generating a High Probability
The probability of a DNA fingerprint belonging to a specific person needs to be reasonably high--especially in criminal cases, where the association helps establish a suspect's guilt or innocence. Using certain rare VNTRs or combinations of VNTRs to create the VNTR pattern increases the probability that the two DNA samples do indeed match (as opposed to look alike, but not actually come from the same person) or correlate (in the case of parents and children).


2. Problems with Determining Probability
A. Population Genetics
VNTRs, because they are results of genetic inheritance, are not distributed evenly across all of human population. A given VNTR cannot, therefore, have a stable probability of occurrence; it will vary depending on an individual's genetic background. The difference in probabilities is particularly visible across racial lines. Some VNTRs that occur very frequently among Hispanics will occur very rarely among Caucasians or African-Americans. Currently, not enough is known about the VNTR frequency distributions among ethnic groups to determine accurate probabilities for individuals within those groups; the heterogeneous genetic composition of interracial individuals, who are growing in number, presents an entirely new set of questions. Further experimentation in this area, known as population genetics, has been surrounded with and hindered by controversy, because the idea of identifying people through genetic anomalies along racial lines comes alarmingly close to the eugenics and ethnic purification movements of the recent past, and, some argue, could provide a scientific basis for racial discrimination. B. Technical Difficulties
Errors in the hybridization and probing process must also be figured into the probability, and often the idea of error is simply not acceptable. Most people will agree that an innocent person should not be sent to jail, a guilty person allowed to walk free, or a biological mother denied her legal right to custody of her children, simply because a lab technician did not conduct an experiment accurately. When the DNA sample available is minuscule, this is an important consideration, because there is not much room for error, especially if the analysis of the DNA sample involves amplification of the sample (creating a much larger sample of genetically identical DNA from what little material is available), because if the wrong DNA is amplified (i.e. a skin cell from the lab technician) the consequences can be profoundly detrimental. Until recently, the standards for determining DNA fingerprinting matches, and for laboratory security and accuracy which would minimize error, were neither stringent nor universally codified, causing a great deal of public outcry.

Practical Applications of DNA Fingerprinting



1. Paternity and Maternity
Because a person inherits his or her VNTRs from his or her parents, VNTR patterns can be used to establish paternity and maternity. The patterns are so specific that a parental VNTR pattern can be reconstructed even if only the children's VNTR patterns are known (the more children produced, the more reliable the reconstruction). Parent-child VNTR pattern analysis has been used to solve standard father-identification cases as well as more complicated cases of confirming legal nationality and, in instances of adoption, biological parenthood.

2. Criminal Identification and Forensics
DNA isolated from blood, hair, skin cells, or other genetic evidence left at the scene of a crime can be compared, through VNTR patterns, with the DNA of a criminal suspect to determine guilt or innocence. VNTR patterns are also useful in establishing the identity of a homicide victim, either from DNA found as evidence or from the body itself.
3. Personal Identification
The notion of using DNA fingerprints as a sort of genetic bar code to identify individuals has been discussed, but this is not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. The technology required to isolate, keep on file, and then analyze millions of very specified VNTR patterns is both expensive and impractical. Social security numbers, picture ID, and other more mundane methods are much more likely to remain the prevalent ways to establish personal identification.

 

[Ashkelon]

Thank you Sarge. Being someone else in the legal field doesn't it scare the bejesus out of you that a lab employee who just got done smoking a joint is running the DNA sample received from a jail matron on a resisting with a vehicle arrest?

 

[abnk]

Gents, we are being fingerprinted for exercising the right to bear arms. Why are you so revolted about this?

 

[4sarge]

Gents, we are being fingerprinted for exercising the right to bear arms. Why are you so revolted about this?

We are not being DNA fingerprinted, yet

 

[Ashkelon]

Exactly. Anyone read Ray Bradbury lately?