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.
You said: 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?
Shouldn't those with a family history of diabetes pay a higher premium than those who do not have such a history, all other things being equal? Isn't insurance supposed to assess actual risks???
They already have it, Einstein. I'm one out of of 3 million souls who have a specific type of pancreatic cancer.
Next question?
Are you aware that if you give false answers on your health or life insurance forms that you can legally be denied benefits? The doomsday scenario you paint has been in effect for the past 30 years. Ain't nobody died as a result.
Law enforcement officials (local and FBI) have it?
Why would a hospital need your fingerprints for a case of pancreatic cancer?
Being a blood donor, I've often wondered if the Red Cross maintains a DNA database.
Does anyone know?
Assuming someone else's identity. No one else could use someone's birth certificate as "ID" if it contained biometrics (which now could be stored as a digital barcode).
Polly Klaas was murdered by her abductor shortly after he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Although the police encountered Klaas's abductor and killer in the area, they did not know that Richard Allen Davis had a violent criminal history or that he was violating parole.
Now try to tell me that if you had a daughter go missing and all that was left at the scene was a little bit of saliva on a cigarette butt that you would prefer that the police had no DNA database.
OH! So if a criminal can abuse something, it shouldn't exist?
My God, by that idiotic notion, there is no science or art than can be lawfully practiced in your world.
I doubt they do. They have enough information to track without keeping everyone's DNA profile.
Then how, pray tell, do you get medical treatment, eye exams, cash a check, or even get a job? All of those require at least one of the items you listed before you can even be considered a candidate for service.
NOW you're getting specific? Before, it was just ragging about "the government." *rolling eyes*
I had to be blood tested for my last life insurance policy. I guess this way the insurance company can determine whether I have given truthful answers. It also helps if you are LESS prone to certain illnesses, giving reason for reduction in premiums. Those who do not commit crimes are protected by the same DNA samples that convict others.
Prop 69 is aa real "long shot" on crime solving.
Previous criminals: you've got their DNA
Non-previous criminals (Suspects): get a warrant for DNA.
You CAN be forced to give blood to prove inebriation. DNA can be taken of someone arrested, so the rest of your scenarios aren't really affected by prop 69. The issue is retention of DNA in a central database. Your DNA is out there, and could be obtained very easily anyway, without your knowing it, and without invading your privacy. This just formalizes it.
medical treatment:
access to DNA via blood work/biopsy/etc. (voluntarily provided, never KEPT, not shared)
Blood type (noted in medical record), Stool sample/Urine sample (voluntarily provided, never KEPT, only screening for specific medical conditions and no drugs)
Driver's License (viewed if pay by check, information never kept).
This information is not shared with police; just look at the efforts they are going through to get Rush Limbaugh's. medical records in Florida.
eye exams:
Driver's License (viewed if pay by check, information never kept).
NOTE: Viewing an eye is NOT the same as a retinal scan and no information is kept, let alone shared.
cash a check:
Driver's License is presented at the bank if I get cash back (not necessary as they provide their own card).
NOTE: NO ID is necessary if I am only making a deposit.
get a job:
Urine sample (for drug test, mandatory by most employers; to my knowledge they don't turn you over to the cops if you "fail")
Social Security Number (actually require a Social Security CARD and this makes SENSE because it was the SOLE purpose of SS).
Let me add to this DRIVER'S LICENSE:
Fingerprints & Social Security Number. AND THIS INFORMATION IS SHARED. The SS # is used to determine if you are a "deadbeat dad" and the fingerprints go to the Department of Public Safety (which is a branch of law enforcement). Why not give urine tests? Wouldn't want drug abusers behind the wheel? Why not blood tests too? Wouldn't want drinkers behind the wheel? Heck they could take a cotton swab of DNA while they are at it. NO ONE bothers with retina scans, they only prove who you are, they can't be used for anything else.
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.