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.
DNA testing eliminates the need for a lie detector test which ISN'T admissible in a court of law.
I thought the ACLU would be wildly in favor of 69.
I voted against this one. I don't think it's a very good idea to take DNA from people who are merely arrested. Suppose you are arrested mistakenly, no charges filed, and released? Guess what? Your DNA is now in a government data base.
And how about the "if you don't have anything to hide" argument? Well, I don't have anything to hide, but I don't let law enforcement into my home just to look around, nor do I hand over my banking information to them, etc. etc. It's none of their business. "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. "
The ACLU can shove it. When people get arrested, they get fingerprinted. Taking a DNA sample is no different, just higher technology.
Once again, the ACLU champions the wrong side.
What about fingerprinting? Any objection to that? They do that over simple arrests as well. Barring that DNA processing is more technologically advanced, how is taking a DNA sample any different than fingerprinting?
The ACLU is right on this one. The guidelines for this one even violate the "if you're not doing anything wrong" clause that is a popular excuse around here. You can't buy safety using freedom as currency.
The same thing happenes with fingerprints. What's the difference?
I object to fingerprinting people before they are convicted. Safety statists sold that freedom long ago.
People are fingerprinted for a lot of different reasons besides having been arrested. I've given a fingerprint at a notary public. I've been fingerprinted for a background check for a job - so I've no doubt my fingerprints are in a government database. It's not necessarily related to a criminal matter. So if your fingerprints are on file somewhere, there's not an assumption that you were arrested for something. The DNA thing does worry me, though. What's next? And no, I'm no fan of the ACLU.
And you make an excellent point.
Can you determine someone's medical predispositions to disease by their fingerprints? Or their gender? Or a million other very personal qualities?
With fingerprints they are not taking a part of a person's body! God forbid we should violate a person's personal space to catch a criminal. That would be positively facist!!!!
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.
If new evidence becomes available, they can always get a warrant to get another sample of your DNA or your fingerprints.
Ain't that the truth.
Yep. I've never been arrested, and yet the government probably has 10-20 sets of my fingerprints.
And I can tell you right now that there are loads of DNA profiles gathered and stored in databases for non-criminal purposes. First there's medical research on issues of sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs (just to name two). Second there's geneaological research (since mitochondrial DNA sequences remains unchanged from mother to child), and so on and so on...
With that in mind, your objections that having a DNA profile on record is an automatic Bad Thing™ is really groundless.
Now let's ask another question: a possible perp is arrested, printed, and later released for insufficient evidence. Later he rapes and kills someone in your family.
A DNA sample is finally taken, and he's linked to other rapes that occurred before his arrest and release. Had that information been available earlier, he'd never have been released, and your family member would still be alive.
Will the life of your family member be worth the privacy concerns you've expressed?
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.