A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Questioning something that is pretty legal for the police to do has no effect.Requiring a warrant before collecting DNA doesn't have any effect on this at all.
And any defense attorney has the power to question the credibility of DNA evidence in court.
Basic logic is up next. Law enforcement has absolutely no need to test for genetic predispositions for BRCA.
Basic logic continues with the fact that if they arrest and DNA test enough of the population for this to be misused by other branches of government, we're already in a police state, and a pesky thing like the 4th Amendment won't stop them.
Yes.And since this now appears to be a constitutional right for law enforcement, is it necessarily a fake fear if all those impediments you threw up are irrelevant 10, 15, 20 years from now?
The question is whether this qualifies as an "unreasonable search and seizure." Hyping things that won't happen does not clarify that issue.
Incorrect. There are plenty of potential grounds for a defense attorney to pursue, ranging from efficacy of the test, quality of the lab, whether protocols were in fact followed, and if a legitimate reason can explain the presence of the DNA.Questioning something that is pretty legal for the police to do has no effect.
In addition, there are plenty of opportunities for police to get a warrant for a DNA test, or to legally obtain the suspect's DNA (e.g. going through the suspect's trash). All this ruling does is lower the bar a small amount.
And considering that DNA can exonerate as well as provide evidence, and is far more precise than fingerprints, I'm not seeing this ruling as a bad thing.
I like Maggies idea. Take a DNA swab at birth and put it on file. People are going to be much less likely to commit a crime if they know that they'll be caught if they leave so much as a hair behind.
Not exactly the best defense 90% of the time.Incorrect. There are plenty of potential grounds for a defense attorney to pursue, ranging from efficacy of the test, quality of the lab, whether protocols were in fact followed, and if a legitimate reason can explain the presence of the DNA.
Again, I already said I don't agree with the trash nonsense, but I see no reason why they would ever use a warrant from now on. Just do whatever the hell you want and take it.In addition, there are plenty of opportunities for police to get a warrant for a DNA test, or to legally obtain the suspect's DNA (e.g. going through the suspect's trash). All this ruling does is lower the bar a small amount.
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
P. J. O'Rourke
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius