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 go to a State hospital? Hospitals are government now?
(Rolls eyes and walks out of the room...)
I said, "why don't we put these things on a birth certificate" and get it over with. EVERYONE'S data would get into the system as a matter of course. Within a few generations EVERYONE would be there. You seem to still hold some reservations about collecting this data from EVERYONE.
You asked me how a birth certificate could be misused.
I told you someone else could use it. You then say that I say "it" (whatever you mean by "it") shouldn't exist. What "it"? Birth certificates? Biometrics? You say that a criminal would abuse "it"? Or are you talking about two different "its"???
Don't be silly. The cops will run genetic tests. And that's not my Big-Brother-Paranoia speaking.
DNA simply isn't useful just sitting in a test tube in some lab... they've got to run genetic tests. Say the LAPD collects DNA from 50,000 people and a crime is committed there. You think the LAPD's solution will be to take a small sample of each of the 50,000 test tubes and compare it to the one collected?
Hah!
Or perhaps you think the police will only run tests on the small sample of the 5 out of 50,000 that could theoretically have committed the crime.
Again I say "Hah!"
That's exactly how people used to compare fingerprints. Now prints are scanned into a computer so that thousands upon thousands of prints can be compared electronically. It's the evolution of information gathering.
Likewise, DNA samples (if collected) will be "scanned" into a computer by categorizing them by a certain subset of genetic sequences. They're going to run some genetic tests. And if they don't look at and record the particular sequence responsible for Sickle Cell Anemia this year you can bet they will ten years from now.
Okay so I made up the dollar figures. Completely irrelevant.
Not really. I have Type II diabetes. Through my doctor's ministrations and my own interest in my health, I take care to attend to my diet and exercise so that I now do not require medications that I was at one time required to take to keep it under control.
There are those who don't give a crap and won't exercise, eat all the junk food they want and continue to ingest very expensive medications to keep them from going blind and keep their feet from falling numb.
Now, should I be penalized by higher premiums because I have a history of this disease in my family? Even though I now cost my insurance company no more than a person who has no such family history?
If I were to be labeled thus by my insurer based on a DNA sample, I'd be crying foul. Wouldn't you? It is a form of discrimination. Granted it is now against the law but we must be very careful about who has access to our DNA samples.
I voted no on it too.
Fingerprints of the innocent should not be allowed to be archived.
They have all of it.....but it doesn't mean I trust them with it.
The cost in the cost-benefit analysis of the crimes that would be solved and prevented by sampling arrestees (I have no problem with taking samples from convicts) is *not* $3000. The cost is the unconstitutional seizure of a part of my body.
Sure it would help prevent and solve crimes. So would random (and not-so-random) searches of private homes without the need of search warrants. Can I assume you believe cops should be allowed free reign over private residences in the interest of community safety?
(Here's where you say "no".)
Then why should they have free reign over my body?
I don't have a single bit of adversion to finger printing, as long as the prints are destroyed if I am cleared. That's not happening here.
"California has the most draconian DNA date base system in the country
Once you're tested you stay in the data base, no matter the disposition of the charges against you. That is what I object to.
Well presented and very correct reply on your post# 80.
I have to disagree. If I had heart disease, for example, that is a risk factor for an early death, and thus an early payoff on my life insurance. It should cost me more in that case. Now, if you take care of your condition, as you say, THAT should also be factored in, but if your Type II diabetes is a risk factor for living a long life, it should result in higher premiums. If we could determine with certainty that I would die in 2 weeks, and you would live 50 more years, who should pay higher premiums?
Yep... and they can file it all with our National ID cards. ;-)
Won't need a card. Your fingers and your eyes will contain the necessary "key" to all of your accounts.
No more tricky pin #s and passwords to try to remember. No need to carry a wallet.
"Just look into this laser while we also match your fingerprint (dual security...). Now, will that be debit or credit? I see that there is a hold on your paycheck because you are behind in your child support and student loans. Transaction denied."
Ahhh...but it isn't (when controlled through diet and exercise). So it shouldn't result in higher premiums.
Your heart disease (hypothetical, I hope) is far more of a risk factor that does not respond as well to "clean living" as does my risk factor. These are all things that need to be factored in when DNA becomes an issue in determining premiums and if the laws governing DNA use by insurers are put in play. I do believe that insurance companies have already lobbied for the rights to use DNA sampling for just these purposes.
We're talking about an oral swab, the unconstitutionality of which is doubtful.
Sure it would help prevent and solve crimes. So would random (and not-so-random) searches of private homes without the need of search warrants.
But we aren't talking about anything random, we're talking about prisoners and arrestees. You know, they type of people we collect evidence on.
Can I assume you believe cops should be allowed free reign over private residences in the interest of community safety?
(Here's where you say "no".)
Then why should they have free reign over my body?
They don't, and wouldn't; your analysis is tortured.
Your risk of being swabbed would be no greater than your risk of being arrested. Arrestees are detained, are they not? They don't have freedom of movement over their bodies. They are fingerprinted. They may be handcuffed. Now, horrors, they'd be orally swabbed.
Your fears are overwrought in this instance.
It's getting very dark around here ;-)
Not a pretty picture, but soon to come.
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.