{OT} spit here

formatting link

Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer

The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency ? a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people.

Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab, Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to convicted felons.

Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information, such as family ties and genetic conditions.

Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders.

Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.

There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates it makes about 140,000 arrests each year.

Justice officials estimate the new collecting requirements would add DNA from an additional 1.2 million people to the database each year.

Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from committing more crimes.

A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest.

"Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so first became available," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the

2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority.

Thirteen states have similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

The new regulation would mean that the federal government could store DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Now innocent people's DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime," McCurdy said.

If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample.

The Homeland Security Department ? the federal agency charged with policing immigration ? supports the new rule.

"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said.

The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested.

The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will be followed by a 30-day comment period

Reply to
badgolferman
Loading thread data ...

The proposed rule should also include getting adding the DNA of law enforcement officers, as well. Funny thing is that cops don't want their DNA in the database. What's good for the goose....

Reply to
Jeff

"Jeff" ...

OK, that's bull, but I see no reason not to collect DNA on criminals. Getting at birth? I think that's a waste of money, but then if you're a victim of a murder, they can identify you, assuming the DNA wasn't destroyed.

Natalie

Reply to
Wickeddoll®

To determine the criminals who were also party to other crimes.

DNA evidence has identified murderers and rapists over 1000 times in New York State alone.

formatting link
And if you keep those guys (most are males) off the street, there will be fewer rapes and murders.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

I have no problem with someone who has been convicted, having their dna taken. I do have a problem by just taking someones DNA who has not been convicted of a crime.

Fact is that it helps solve cases...

Reply to
Don't Taze Me, Bro!

Um....I'm not the one who needs convincing. I think it's a great idea. I was saying that cops should have to be DNA'd too.

Natalie

Reply to
Wickeddoll®

If you're not guilty of anything, you have nothing to worry about. This excuse works for wiretaps, and suspension of certain constitutional rights, so it's also valid for all other intrusions.

1....2.....3......
Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Actually, that's not true. Insurance companies would love to learn which people are more likely to come down with Alzhiemer's, cancer and other diseases. Some of that info is also in the DNA database. There are other questions about invasion of privacy.

There are some serious ethical issues.

These need to be dealt with, including criminal penalties for misuse of private DNA data (in other words, the only use of the DNA database collected for identifying people involved in crimes should be this and other limited uses, like identifying the dead - if their DNA is recorded in the database).

There are legitimate ethical concerns, but with proper regulation, these ethical concerns can be properly managed.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

First of all, I was kidding. The "if you're not guilty of anything" horseshit is something the idiots here like to say when someone raises legitimate concerns about illegal wiretaps and other constitutional violations.

Stick around for a few minutes. Shmuckland or one of the other infants will be along shortly to comment on this.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Convicted of what? Do traffic crimes count?

Maybe, maybe not. If the convicted person is willing to provide samples do exonerate themselves then I would agree. Otherwise I would say one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Forcibly taking bodily fluids to prove one's guilt should not be the law.

Reply to
badgolferman

Read the article. A felony.

The sample is taken only if the person is convicted.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Ever applied for a peace officer's job? In the late 1970s I did. Though I passed the written and orals, uncorrected vision had to be

20/40 or better so that did me in.

But I have no doubt they're still on file electronically somewhere.

Reply to
witfal

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.