Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACLU files suit against Proposition 69
Contra Costa Times ^ | 12/7/4 | Nathaniel Hoffman

Posted on 12/07/2004 12:57:18 PM PST by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO - The ACLU in California filed a federal class-action lawsuit Tuesday to halt some DNA testing required by Proposition 69, approved by voters in November.

The initiative requires law enforcement agencies to collect DNA from a wide range of people, including those arrested but never convicted of a crime.

"California has the most draconian DNA date base system in the country because of Proposition 69," said ACLU attorney Julia Harumi Mass.

Named in the suit are state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, several county sheriffs, including Warren Rupf in Contra Costa and Charles Plummer in Alameda County.

The ACLU challenge is based on three constitution arguments. The suit argues that Prop. 69 violates Fourth Amendment controls on search and seizure, is a violation of privacy rights and violates due process.

Plaintiffs include people arrested but never charged, people who served time and are free from the criminal justice system, and a man who is a victim of identify theft and has been repeatedly arrested for other people's crimes.

The suit asks for an injunction against the implementation of Prop. 69.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: aclu; criminal; dna; lawsuit; privacy; prop69
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last
To: untrained skeptic
Do I think they should be able to take your DNA in order to build a case? Yes. However, I don't think they should be able to keep records of your DNA or your fingerprints on file for an extended period of time if they decide not to charge you.

They can, they do, and I couldn't give a rolling donut. Why? Because the mere matter of getting arrested is in the Public Record, so it doesn't matter a tinker's damn if the DNA sample or fingers are kept or tossed; the fact that you were arrested will still persist...even if you're never charged. Sure, you can take it to court to have it expunged, but that will only remove information on what you were arrested for, not remove that you were arrested.

If new evidence becomes available, they can always get a warrant to get another sample of your DNA or your fingerprints.

I don't believe in paying twice for the same bag of peanuts.

21 posted on 12/07/2004 1:27:49 PM PST by Prime Choice (I like Democrats, too. Let's exchange recipes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

Personally I think everyone should have a DNA type on file. It would go a long way toward identifying an unknown homicide victim and might very well put some people in jail while keeping others out. It has already freed people wrongly accused and incarcerated


22 posted on 12/07/2004 1:27:52 PM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

Dandy. So law enforcement can take my DNA just to keep on hand for future reference.

So there are DNA profiles for geneological and medical research? So what does that have to do with having your DNA involuntarily taken for criminal databases even if you've not been charged of a crime, nor convicted of one? I think it's intrusive. But then, we're so far down the road, I guess it doesn't really matter anymore.


23 posted on 12/07/2004 1:31:16 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
I object to fingerprinting people before they are convicted. Safety statists sold that freedom long ago.

So how do you presume to prosecute crimes that have no witnesses? Like burglaries or murders? You know...cases where the fingerprints are the key evidence linking the criminal to the crime?

Well, Einstein...I'm waiting.

24 posted on 12/07/2004 1:31:40 PM PST by Prime Choice (I like Democrats, too. Let's exchange recipes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"The ACLU challenge is based on three constitution arguments. The suit argues that Prop. 69 violates Fourth Amendment controls on search and seizure, is a violation of privacy rights and violates due process."

Sure where are thess ACLU bastxxds when the 4th is violated daily at airports.

25 posted on 12/07/2004 1:34:04 PM PST by Wurlitzer (I have the biggest organ in my town {;o))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .38sw
Dandy. So law enforcement can take my DNA just to keep on hand for future reference.

Oh please. You argued, and I quote: "So if your fingerprints are on file somewhere, there's not an assumption that you were arrested for something."

I pointed out that, since there are many other databases that are both privately and publicly held and maintained, your claim of an assumption of arrest was a faulty conclusion based on erroneous assumptions. Don't pull this red herring crap on me.

26 posted on 12/07/2004 1:35:10 PM PST by Prime Choice (I like Democrats, too. Let's exchange recipes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I'm 100% with the ACLU on this.


27 posted on 12/07/2004 1:36:58 PM PST by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
No Executive board member of the ACLU has ever been:

A member of the U.S.military

A practicing Christian

A girl or boy scout

Their obvious goal is to destroy traditional America and replace it with a socialistic kind of brave new world where there is no middle class.

28 posted on 12/07/2004 1:38:25 PM PST by squirt-gun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushisdamanin04

69 the game, the UCLA will defened to the death. Destroying proposition 69, the UCLA will pursue to the very last cent of tax-payer confiscated bucks in their trove.


29 posted on 12/07/2004 1:38:36 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (We would love to get along with liberals, but not by placating their childish tantrum fits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis
The same thing happenes with fingerprints. What's the difference?

When you take my fingerprints, the information you can gather is rather minimal... whether I could have been involved in past crimes... and how many fingers I have.

When you take someone's DNA, you have the potential to learn much, much more. I don't want to get all tin-foil-hatty... But what about when geneticists find a "violence gene"? You KNOW some freaky judge will say the presence of that gene alone is enough for a search warrant. Plus, what's to stop cops from arresting certain people when they know the charges are bogus? How long until you can pay a cop to arrest your fiance just so you can find out if your children will be healthy?

I know. I'm almost running out of Reynolds just on those two suggestions. But it's a slippery slope, my friend... so allow me to turn the question around. We know that the government does not have the right to search my home unless they can prove they have a reasonable basis for a belief that I committed a crime. So why should the government have the right to collect my DNA without meeting the same burden of proof? Certainly the intrusion of government into my body is worse than the intrusion of government into my home.

30 posted on 12/07/2004 1:38:37 PM PST by bigLusr (Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: squirt-gun

"No middle class."

Creating Mexico north, is their agenda, then?


31 posted on 12/07/2004 1:41:44 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (We would love to get along with liberals, but not by placating their childish tantrum fits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

//Do I think they should be able to take your DNA in order to build a case? Yes. However, I don't think they should be able to keep records of your DNA or your fingerprints on file for an extended period of time if they decide not to charge you.//

What I'd like to see, for both fingerprints and DNA, would be a procedure via which a particular sample could be checked against another or against a database, without the holder of the database getting a copy of the sample and without the person seeking the match getting information from the database (beyond a go/no-go). I think this should be cryptographically possible, and might be a good approach.

I'd also like to see arrestees for certain crimes have DNA samples taken and placed in a sealed container with the proviso that the container will be returned unopened if the person is acquitted or charges are dropped. If the person skips bail, however, the sample could then be added to the database.


32 posted on 12/07/2004 1:42:04 PM PST by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

One problem I have with this law is, it means that DNA will be taken from people who arrested, not convicted.


33 posted on 12/07/2004 1:43:37 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigLusr
Plus, what's to stop cops from arresting certain people when they know the charges are bogus? How long until you can pay a cop to arrest your fiance just so you can find out if your children will be healthy?

I know. I'm almost running out of Reynolds just on those two suggestions

You are.

What stops cops from accepting bribes or making bad arrests now? Besides, there are easier ways to get DNA from a fiance. Like a hairbrush.

34 posted on 12/07/2004 1:45:56 PM PST by Fatalis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis
Will the life of your family member be worth the privacy concerns you've expressed?

Of course not. But the perp wasn't released in the first instance because the State lacked his DNA samples. He was released for insufficient evidence. That's a failure of Law Enforcement. It has happened, does happen and always will happen. It may suck sometimes but that is the way the Law works in this nation. Innocent until proven guilty.
Secondly, the likelyhood of your scenario happening to me is a billion to one chance when compared to the odds of my insurance company getting the information from the gubmint's DNA database and restructuring my premiums based on what that info reveals.

Now let's ask another question: Are you willing to pay higher premiums for insurance because your supposedly private DNA submission was found to reveal a family history of diabetes?

I hate to use the tired old phrase...but having everyone submit to to giving DNA samples to The State is a slippery slope that we dare not venture onto. I have an inexhaustible faith in the darker side of human nature and Man's ability to corrupt and pervert just about anything he lays his hands on.

35 posted on 12/07/2004 1:47:40 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (All I ask from livin' is to have no chains on me. All I ask from dyin' is to go naturally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

My opinion is that the ACLU's raison d'etre is to use the Constitution to somehow bring about socialism. But doing that is bound to get them into trouble by ending up on the right side of things occasionally, as they have here.


36 posted on 12/07/2004 1:51:39 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis
Besides, there are easier ways to get DNA from a fiance. Like a hairbrush.

Erm, that's an easier way to get hair. But unless I'm a geneticist with a lab and millions of dollars of equipment in my basement that hair will probably tell me very little about future offspring. Assuming I can't actually run tests myself then I've got the choice of paying some commercial lab $30,000 to run DNA tests, or I pay some cop $3,000 and fellow tax payers pick up the tab.

Which is easier?

37 posted on 12/07/2004 1:53:47 PM PST by bigLusr (Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
But the perp wasn't released in the first instance because the State lacked his DNA samples. He was released for insufficient evidence.

You're begging the question.

If a perp is arrested for one crime, and printed, and then it turns out he didn't commit that crime, but his prints are on a murder weapon in another, he won't be released, even though there is insufficient evidence to hold him on the crime for which he was arrested.

This is exactly analogous to my DNA hypothetical. The DNA sample would have prevented the release of the perp who raped and killed your family member.


Secondly, the likelyhood of your scenario happening to me is a billion to one chance when compared to the odds of my insurance company getting the information from the gubmint's DNA database and restructuring my premiums based on what that info reveals.

LOL! That's utter and unfounded speculation on your part. DNA extraction from prisoners and arrestees will solve and prevent many more crimes than it already does. You have no data set for insurance companies accessing DNA databases, and it would be a simple thing to legislate against such abuses. You'd own the insurance company if they did that to you.


Now let's ask another question: Are you willing to pay higher premiums for insurance because your supposedly private DNA submission was found to reveal a family history of diabetes?

No, and fortunately that's a separate issue, and there is already legislation on the books preventing it.


I hate to use the tired old phrase...but having everyone submit to to giving DNA samples to The State is a slippery slope that we dare not venture onto. I have an inexhaustible faith in the darker side of human nature and Man's ability to corrupt and pervert just about anything he lays his hands on.

That would concern me too, but not everyone would be submitting DNA samples under Proposition 69. Prisoners and arrestees, that's about it (I'm not sure about parolees). DNA would be taken as evidence, because it is evidence.

38 posted on 12/07/2004 1:59:22 PM PST by Fatalis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle; Jackal007; TheBigB
"California has the most draconian DNA data base system in the country because of Proposition 69," said ACLU attorney Julia Harumi Mass.

Yes, I'm sure the ol' 69 can get you all sorts of DNA samples!

39 posted on 12/07/2004 2:04:40 PM PST by HenryLeeII (Democrats have killed more Americans than the Soviets and Nazis combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis
DNA would be taken as evidence, because it is evidence.

Yes, initially...but to my cynical thinking it is only opening up a door.
I guess on this issue, I lean a bit more towards Libertarian.

On the other points...you are correct. My arguments were specious, at best. I'm never at my best when trying Freep at work. I need my pajamas on to do a proper job of it.

40 posted on 12/07/2004 2:05:17 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (All I ask from livin' is to have no chains on me. All I ask from dyin' is to go naturally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson