Supreme Court says police can take DNA samples upon arrest

[daze23]

I think people against this would think cops will start using this to catalog people. I guess maryland can afford this but I would think this is expensive as fukk to get some one's dna unless they would save the swab until they use it. either way even in there statement they are using it to id people and since fingerprints do the same thing and are cheaper to produce i think alot of other states would stick to taking your fingerprints.

fingerprints really used to suck. shyt was mad tedious how they would press and roll each finger. last time I was in there shyt was all digital though

I'm not sure about the methods for dna collection. I would imagine the best thing would be to analyze it right away, and just store the data. but i imagine they have to 'send it out' to a lab and shyt. it does say that it would only be for "charges relating to a serious offense"

 

[Bud Bundy]

1. This is without a warrant proving to be more Patriot Act 3.0 policy.
2. It defies the 4th Amendment...which again is taking away from the people.
3. As explained in the video with the congresswoman said there is a powerful database that will know everything about everyone.....hmmmm


And they got us by our social security numbers anyway.

Social Security Numbers mean jack compaired to DNA which can break down everything. I can lose a ss card b/c that card isn't identification...your DNA is.

1. This is nothing like the Patriot act which is used to spy on people.
2. how does it defy the forth amendment when fingerprints are essentially the same thing. They are a unique to the individual and they finger print you when you are not convicted of any crime.

3. When they look up your social security they know everything about you on record anyway so i do not understand your fear.

4. your social security is a form of identification so i do not understand you saying it means jack compared to DNA.

 

[Bud Bundy]

fingerprints really used to suck. shyt was mad tedious how they would press and roll each finger. last time I was in there shyt was all digital though

I'm not sure about the methods for dna collection. I would imagine the best thing would be to analyze it right away, and just store the data. but i imagine they have to 'send it out' to a lab and shyt. it does say that it would only be for "charges relating to a serious offense"

What I am really not understanding is why they need your DNA if they got you. Is that thing could you refuse to give authorities your DNA?

 

[daze23]

I've said this a few times on here, but yall would be surprised how little 'they' know about you. it shouldn't be a surprise, but credit agencies probably know more about you from you ss# than the police or any federal agency

even that fingerprint shyt doesn't really have a singular national database. I know people that recently got processed with fake names, even though they had out of state issues

 

[daze23]

What I am really not understanding is why they need your DNA if they got you. Is that thing could you refuse to give authorities your DNA?

well they gotta swab it from the inside of your cheek. if people see that as out of the ordinary, they might not want to comply. in general when arrested you don't want to give anymore information than you have to. but never the less the police may try to get you to say or do something that may somehow be used as evidence against you. you definitely have to be careful what you consent to. they just want to establish that it's part of "a legitimate police booking procedure"

 

[thekingsmen]

1. This is nothing like the Patriot act which is used to spy on people.

It's without using a warrant...exactly how P.A. works.



2. how does it defy the forth amendment when fingerprints are essentially the same thing. They are a unique to the individual and they finger print you when you are not convicted of any crime.

Using someone's spit, snot, semen, hair, skin, nail to convict someone is different from a finger print. To save that DNA is troubling since the person could have been in the same area of the crime but didn't commit it, DNA would automatically convict him.



3. When they look up your social security they know everything about you on record anyway so i do not understand your fear.

Your social security number won't convict you of a crime or be stored in a database for police to use against you.



4. your social security is a form of identification so i do not understand you saying it means jack compared to DNA.

SS cards aren't for identification before 1972. So those before that year invalid info on you. It says it on their cards.

 

[thekingsmen]

 

[Bud Bundy]

1. This is nothing like the Patriot act which is used to spy on people.

It's without using a warrant...exactly how P.A. works.



2. how does it defy the forth amendment when fingerprints are essentially the same thing. They are a unique to the individual and they finger print you when you are not convicted of any crime.

Using someone's spit, snot, semen, hair, skin, nail to convict someone is different from a finger print. To save that DNA is troubling since the person could have been in the same area of the crime but didn't commit it, DNA would automatically convict him.



3. When they look up your social security they know everything about you on record anyway so i do not understand your fear.

Your social security number won't convict you of a crime or be stored in a database for police to use against you.



4. your social security is a form of identification so i do not understand you saying it means jack compared to DNA.

SS cards aren't for identification before 1972. So those before that year invalid info on you. It says it on their cards

1. spying and ID are two different things but your right about the warrent thing.

2. i strongly disagree with you on your issue that DNA convicts someone of a crime. much like fingerprints just because they were at the scene of a crime does not mean you did the crime. there could be other reasons (just like fingerprints are useless in convicting a husband if he is accused of murdering his wife. why wouldn't his fingerprints be all over her).

3. yet again this is just for id and to id a person prosecutors will still have prove they did it.

4. well this does not apply to me so maybe to you?

 

[Bud Bundy]

I've said this a few times on here, but yall would be surprised how little 'they' know about you. it shouldn't be a surprise, but credit agencies probably know more about you from you ss# than the police or any federal agency

even that fingerprint shyt doesn't really have a singular national database. I know people that recently got processed with fake names, even though they had out of state issues

yeah but it is not hard for them to find out.

 

[rapbeats]

Police can take your DNA sample upon arrest



How is this not guilty until proven innocent? Don't nikkaz have to have some kind of court order/warrant/legitimate proof before they take your DNA? What if you're a poor black dude, they take your DNA, place it at the spot of the crime, and say it was you who did it? What is going on in today's USA?

well put it this way. they already take your finger prints. so they are using that as the reason to take your dna. dna is the new finger print. they could've used your finger print and put it at the scene of the crime. that same as your dna. so it is what it is.

 

[Jello Biafra]

The difference between fingerprinting and DNA sampling is that in the case of DNA it is a more obtrusive procedure that is completely in opposition to the Fourth Amendment. It is unconstitutional to search a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for assuming that the individual is guilty of said crime or even if the individual has any incriminating knowledge or evidence of said crime.
This whole DNA sampling thing is not to ID people like fingerprints are used for but rather the end goal is to create a comprehensive DNA database that will then be used to tie people crimes that tey have not been arrested for. If you want to get a US citizen's DNA then you should be forced to provide some sort of probable cause to a judge and procure a warrant. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be able to take anyone's bodily fluids.
And the fact that an asshat like Antonin Scalia could see that this ruling was unconstitutional should be enough to answer the dumbass question of "What's so bad about it?" that so many are asking.

 

[daze23]

This whole DNA sampling thing is not to ID people like fingerprints are used for but rather the end goal is to create a comprehensive DNA database that will then be used to tie people crimes that tey have not been arrested for.

sounds like the same thing to me. it's used to ID people

 

[ExodusNirvana]

The difference between fingerprinting and DNA sampling is that in the case of DNA it is a more obtrusive procedure that is completely in opposition to the Fourth Amendment. It is unconstitutional to search a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for assuming that the individual is guilty of said crime or even if the individual has any incriminating knowledge or evidence of said crime.
This whole DNA sampling thing is not to ID people like fingerprints are used for but rather the end goal is to create a comprehensive DNA database that will then be used to tie people crimes that tey have not been arrested for. If you want to get a US citizen's DNA then you should be forced to provide some sort of probable cause to a judge and procure a warrant. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be able to take anyone's bodily fluids.
And the fact that an asshat like Antonin Scalia could see that this ruling was unconstitutional should be enough to answer the dumbass question of "What's so bad about it?" that so many are asking.

I'm still stuck that dudes are really in here comparing fingerprints to DNA

I'm gonna make note of all the people in this thread I don't wanna hear a peep about overreaching government from NONE of ya'll.

No complaints about wiretapping, spying on citizens, NONE of that.

 

[daze23]

I'm still stuck that dudes are really in here comparing fingerprints to DNA

I'm gonna make note of all the people in this thread I don't wanna hear a peep about overreaching government from NONE of ya'll.

No complaints about wiretapping, spying on citizens, NONE of that.

can you explain how you see it as being very different from fingerprinting

 

[Jello Biafra]

sounds like the same thing to me. it's used to ID people

No, the claim that the government used in court was that they would use DNA as an ID tool but what actually happens is they then run yoiur DNA through a database to try and see if it is tied to any open crimes in the system which is unconstitutional. That was the issue in the Maryland case, not that DNA was used for identification purposes but rather the authorities used it to do a widespread and open search to see if the guy's DNA mathced any DNA found in other cases.
Say you get popped for something innocuous as public drunkenness; that public indebriation charge does not give the police the probable cause to make the leap to assuming that you are also possibly a suspected serial rapist so they can then do a comparison check on your DNA against DNA that had been found in any open rape cases in their systems.
This is a case of government overreach.