• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees

I truly dont know this so I am just asking. One time long ago in another life I was taken to the Columbus Ohio PD and was questioned all day about an armed robbery. I was never arrested and it was cracking me up because when the detective was saying I robbed somewhere I was at work 200 miles away. It really cracked me up too because he asked me questions about other crimes I did not even know what or where they were talking about. I kept telling the detective to call where I work and ask them. anyway finally after wasting several of his and my hours he just walked out and told me to go away. Course I had no money and they were keeping my buddy (who had all the cash) for outstanding traffic violations. How much evidence do they have to have to arrest you and swab your DNA? I am pretty sure that cop would have taken anything he could have got. That damn detective was going to bust me for something, but it was my first time in his stinking little town so he got nuthing. Oh and by the way, a couple of cops paid for my bus ticket home even though I told them I would never come back to their stinking town. I haven't yet I dont think.
apdst said:
Getting arrested purdy much covers the probable cause part.
Click to expand...
 
Bronson said:
That is the only grey area for me where I would need to give it more thought. There are certain rights parents have over their children before they are age 18. That child is a product of the parents DNA. (adoptions ect obviously would not have the same right to that child's DNA that their biological parents potentially have. Again I'm undecided). That's certainly an enormous Pandora's box that would need to be explored I agree with you. I'm on the fence with it.
Click to expand...

I'm probably more restrictive with parental rights than most, but to me, parental rights only restricts the rights of children in three major areas, maintenance, health, and guidance. The child still has a right to their body and therefore their DNA and the only things I personally accept them doing towards the body of the child are either for maintenance which would be doctor checkups, dentist appointments, hair cuts, baths, etc, or in the case of injury or a condition that requires healthcare. To me, no one has a right to your DNA other than you.
 
Bronson said:
Sorry I won't "lighten up". Apparently the whole "my body my choice" rhetoric only applies if you're murdering an innocent child in the womb. What right does the Government have to your body? Your DNA is your matter. It's not an imprint like a cast or ink smudged on paper. It's literally your cells. It is your physical blueprint. Clones can be made from DNA. Without a warrant what right does the Government have to extract cells and DNA from your body without your consent if you have not committed a serious crime? If you are under no suspicion of having committed a crime the Government can confiscate your DNA at birth? Really? You specifically stated the Government has a right to DNA just for a human being born. Your response to giving Government that authority over your body is "lighten up"? Are you kidding me right now?

If a parent wants to take a DNA sample and store it on their own, that is their right as parents. The Government is not your mommy and daddy however.

If you believe in The Constitution how could you possibly come to the conclusion that the Government has a right to your body just for being born.
Click to expand...

Talk to SCOTUS. It was their decision, not mine. But I support it.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, I'm about trying to gather the most conclusive evidence as to a person's guilt or innocence as to the commission of a crime. Since the reliability of DNA has been proven, many have been released from prison for crimes not committed. You, it seems, would rather return to the days of circumstantial evidence being the most prevalent...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I consider my DNA my property. I will be sure to not consider changing my view.
 
Henrin said:
I'm sorry that I consider my DNA my property. I will be sure to not consider changing my view.
Click to expand...

You can consider what you wish, but when you're arrested with probable cause, it will be collected as will all other relevant evidence to the commission of a crime...
 
MaggieD said:
Well then stop leaving it laying all over the place.
Click to expand...

Abandonment laws already allow them to take your DNA. Who made up this idea that because I leave something behind that it is all of sudden not my property and the state can just take it?
 
Last edited:
AlabamaPaul said:
You can consider what you wish, but when you're arrested with probable cause, it will be collected as will all other relevant evidence to the commission of a crime...
Click to expand...

And I'm guessing they get to make up the rules on what probable cause means. Yeah, that is a great idea to allow them to do whatever they want under such conditions.
 
Last edited:
I'm torn on this one.

On the one hand, they already take fingerprints and keep them. Why is this any different?

Plus, many of us here, including me, decry the ability for LE to spy into e-mail accounts and such claiming that it is just an updated form of the handwritten and sealed letter, which is still ptotected. So, in the interest of consistency of concept, isn't DNA just an updated version of biometric information similar to the fingerprint that we already allow them to have? :shrug:

On the other hand, I fear the potential for abuse, and we have already seen some cases of dishonest lab techs.
 
radcen said:
I'm torn on this one.

On the one hand, they already take fingerprints and keep them. Why is this any different?

Plus, many of us here, including me, decry the ability for LE to spy into e-mail accounts and such claiming that it is just an updated form of the handwritten and sealed letter, which is still ptotected. So, in the interest of consistency of concept, isn't DNA just an updated version of biometric information similar to the fingerprint that we already allow them to have? :shrug:

On the other hand, I fear the potential for abuse, and we have already seen some cases of dishonest lab techs.
Click to expand...

Why do people just say that because they can do one they should be able to do the other? Does no one ever ask why they are allowed to take fingerprints? Does no one realize they are doing exactly what people warn of all the time with the slippery slope?
 
Henrin said:
Why do people just say that because they can do one they should be able to do the other? Does no one ever ask why they are allowed to take fingerprints? Does no one realize they are doing exactly what people warn of all the time with the slippery slope?
Click to expand...

As a committed slippery slope theorist I completely understand your point. And don't automatically mistake my post for acceptance or approval. But, at the same time, it's not always an invalid concept, either. In this case I think it is a valid point for discussion.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I do have another issue with this, and it's not necessarily related to crime, but let's say a person is arrested and a DNA sample is taken and it's discovered through testing that the individual has AIDS or some other communicable disease.
Click to expand...
That's not how it works.

They aren't withdrawing 20 vials of blood to do a CBC, six STD tests and a cancer screening. They basically check a small sample of DNA, enough to uniquely identify that individual.
 
Helix said:
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?
Click to expand...
Well, I am mixed on this for the reason you pointed out. Past that however, IF DNA were ruled that it couldn't be taken because of an arrest, then fingerprinting would be next. Someone would bring that to the courts.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not in the US, but this strikes me as having the potential to abrogate your constitution's defense against self-incrimination. I could understand if it applied to those who were convicted in a court of some crime, as part of their sentence, but how many people in the course of any day are arrested and let go without charges? How many people are rounded up in a protest, to disband a crowd, and then let go? Are these people all going to be swabbed and tested just in case you might strike gold and catch someone?
Click to expand...
So, you are against fingerprinting as well, right?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Unless the law requires that the swab can only be used in furtherance of the case in which the individual was arrested, there seems to me no requirement for the police not to store the results in a database and use them in future or other cases.

What happened to probable cause being required for the police to get a warrant on the suspicion that a person was connected to a crime? In this case, the result is that your DNA will provide a presumption of guilt in all cases until such time as the data clears you of any or all crimes in perpetuity.

What forces the police to destroy the DNA swab evidence/results after the individual is released or not charged or not convicted of a crime?
Click to expand...
So, you also advocate destroying fingerprint files and mugshots, right?
 
jamesrage said:
This is a violation of 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights.Swabbing for DNA is a search and it is basically forcing someone to testify against themselves. An arrest doesn't equal guilt.You are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court of law.Innocent people should not have their constitutional rights violated without a warrant.
Click to expand...
OK, last time I'll bring up fingerprints and mugshots.

Feel the same way about them by chance?
 
apdst said:
They already have a warrant.
Click to expand...
In a sense, yes.

People go overboard with this warrant part. I have to believe the don't understand the constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
Once there was a reason for the arrest, it isn't unreasonable.
 
Henrin said:
In those cases they are using abandonment laws to get around the fourth amendment.
Click to expand...
You throw something in the trash, you've abandoned it. If you don't want the cops (or the press or your neighbors or some random stranger on the street) to take it, either you need to keep it or destroy it. Your property is no longer protected once it is not your property.


I don't see how people can see nothing wrong with the government tricking people into giving them their property. It's crazy to me.
Click to expand...
There is always a tension between the needs of the state to gather evidence, and the individual's right to privacy (which, by the way, isn't explicitly protected by the Constitution).

A decision either way is going to run afoul of one of those two needs.

Meanwhile, there is a justifiable purpose for law enforcement to gather this evidence. It's unlikely that police are going to pop everyone for a violent felony just to get their DNA in a database.

Plus, police officers are allowed to use deception and "tricks" in an interrogation, and a defense attorney is entitled to explain to the jury that the defendant was coerced and deceived into confessing.
 
radcen said:
As a committed slippery slope theorist I completely understand your point. And don't automatically mistake my post for acceptance or approval. But, at the same time, it's not always an invalid concept, either. In this case I think it is a valid point for discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't think the government should ever taking your DNA or fingerprints without your permission. I'm more than willing to allow them to gather other evidence but I have real problem with those two just being gathered against peoples wills. We have a right to body sovereignty and that should extend into after we are arrested.
 
Henrin said:
I don't think the government should ever taking your DNA or fingerprints without your permission. I'm more than willing to allow them to gather other evidence but I have real problem with those two just being gathered against peoples wills. We have a right to body sovereignty and that should extend into after we are arrested.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out the existing precedent. For right or for wrong, because of the long-standing precedent, it has to be included in the discussion.
 
Visbek said:
That's not how it works.

They aren't withdrawing 20 vials of blood to do a CBC, six STD tests and a cancer screening. They basically check a small sample of DNA, enough to uniquely identify that individual.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many swabs they take? Do you know what tests can be done from a single swab?

I wouldn't be so cavalier in my attitude toward state intrusions into my body.
 
Helix said:
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?
Click to expand...

I think the decision is an abomination of our Constitution & Bill of Rights.

Taking DNA samples just because you get arrested?

This is another case of the government deciding what the government is allowed to do through the non-existent Judicial Review process.

I look at it this way, I dont care what the government courts decided...God forbid that I ever get in any trouble and get arrested for any reason, they will not get my DNA without a warrant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom