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.
$3,000 will buy you a whole lot of DNA testing and screening, so your scenario doesn't carry much weight in the cost-benefit analysis of the crimes that would be solved and prevented by sampling prisoners and arrestees.
Yes, and in the room beyond the door are prisoners and arrestees.
Thinking the best of you, it would take another law entirely to open the door to the room where you might be sitting. I'd join you in keeping that door closed, but that's not what's happening with Proposition 69.
If you are arrested but never charged, do they fingerprint you?
I tend to agree, taking DNA samples from someone who is arrested but never charged is not a good idea.
The potential for mischief is too great.
No, but if you're arrested you will have a mug shot taken and be fingerprinted. It's been that way for decades. I don't see DNA samples as being any more intrusive than a finger print, personally.
You'd only be paying the cop to obtain the DNA. You'd still have to pay a geneticist to run the appropriate genetic tests.
Without fingerprinting, how do you get a conviction?
It's all a "tag and release" policy. Here in Texas they required a finger print from EACH HAND to get a driver's license.
Are they THAT afraid that I will lose a hand and be unable to "prove" who I am?
DNA samples on file (for people never charged) makes them a suspect before the fact.
Unsolved cases are just the type to run against a population pool to "try to find a match".
No more than the FBI fingerprint file does. The draconian police state hasn't crushed the country because of that policy, now has it?
Let's just cut to the quick and fingerprint, retinal scan, and get a DNA swab of EVERYONE when they are born or apply for marriage licenses, immigration, etc. < /sarcasm >
Keep your head down. Choppers...
I voted against it also, for the very reasons you state. If someone is idicted for a crime they can already get their DNA from them with a court order, just as they can get a search warrent. I do not think you should have to submit to DNA testing if you are simply arrested and then later released. Enough with the government in our lives already.
What is it about the aclu and laws? cant they get it thru their thick skulls these are LAWS!!! they'll try and overturn ANYTHING that isnt leftist or socialistic.
Let me know when you have something useful to contribute to the discussion.
I oppose keeping the fingerprints of people who have been determined to be "innocent" whether the prosecutor is unable to convince the jury of guilt or the district attorney drops the charge altogether.
Keeping the fingerprints says "we may not have proven you were guilty but we still find you to be suspicious of other crimes, we may need these later..."
Why can't the information be held until the case is proven?
We don't want the government to keep data from the "background check" for firearm purchases.
Why is it absurd? Birth certificates are misused all the time.
Or are you afraid to give YOUR biometric signatures to the government?
You said: I'm 100% with the ACLU on this.
I'll take the other side. I don't get how this violates any constitutionally protected interest. I would perhaps consider a restriction on the use of the DNA for any use other than identification/exclusion. I am not sure what privacy interest is then harmed by getting DNA samples, by a simple swab of the mouth. That is not really intrusive, and tells the government nothing personal about you, such as legal, but perhaps unpopular activities you undertake, which is, as I understand it, the real interest to be protected under constitutional analysis.
By whom and in what way? Be precise.
What's the point of prop 69, given:about 6% of the population commits 80% of the crimes & we've already got their DNA
( ) A new bureaucracy for law enforcement w/ attendant funding & union membership
( ) A new source of power/control over the "subjects"
( ) other
It's gonna be as effective as ballistic fingerprinting in solving crime
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.