DNA Testing Proposed For All Felony Arrests In New Mexico 155
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The AP reports that a proposal to expand DNA testing to anyone arrested for a felony in New Mexico has passed the state House, expanding a 2006 state law requiring DNA samples of those arrested of certain violent felonies, such as murder, kidnapping and sex offenses. 'We must give law enforcement the best possible tools to prevent crime and convict criminals, and requiring DNA samples from those arrested for felonies is simply the modern-day equivalent of fingerprinting,' says Governor Susana Martinez. Under the measure, already enacted in a dozen states, suspects 18 and older will have to provide DNA samples — from a cheek swab, for example — when they're booked at jails for any felony, as supporters says the expanded testing can help prevent crimes. But opponents contend the testing violates a person's right to privacy and could cause police to make arrests on a pretext to obtain a DNA sample."
Pretext (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were all, you'd be fine limiting this sampling to convicts instead of every arrested suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because DNA evidence has never played a role in convicting anyone and never will in the future. Uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to play the devil's advocate:
What is the difference between a fingerprint sample and a DNA sample? Both are personal, unique and can be used to tie a suspect to other crimes. While I understand that DNA is more alarming, can someone give me a good (rational, not FUD) reason why DNA is worse than fingerprints?
If you think that the state should delete the sample from the database if the person is found innocent, then the same should be done for fingerprints.
P.S.
Before someone talks about big brother usin
Re: (Score:2)
DNA evidence is 'better' than fingerprints, but the problem is that both are given far more weight than they deserve. The mere existence of DNA evidence, even when that evidence isn't necessarily linked to the crime, can be enough for a conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
Well for starters we shed DNA all of the time, it's much easier to collect someones hair, dandruff, blood and saliva and plant it at a scene than it is to plant someones fingerprints. An astute amateur can collect some DNA from someone he wants to frame without too much difficulty and amplify the sample with a PCR [wikipedia.org] technique using commonly available Taq polymerase [wikipedia.org] and honestly some chemicals found in most kitchens such as vodka, dish detergent and meat tenderizer.
Re: (Score:2)
The point raised by you is a valid concern regarding the interpretation of DNA evidence in courts. DNA evidence should be better at proving once innocence than it is in proving guilt (at least, as sole evidence). However, I believe it does not directly address my question: Assuming DNA (and fingerprint) evidence is used correctly in courts, what does it matter to me if the cops take my fingerprints, DNA sample, retina scan or whatever? I agree that the assumption may be questionable, but still...
Re:Pretext (Score:5, Insightful)
If DNA testing will exonerate you, why not sample your DNA?
Same reason why I know a few parents who won't get their kids fingerprinted for the police "safety program" - scope creep.
I'd have less objection to supplying DNA when charged with a crime, but they won't throw that sample out afterwards, will they? They'll stash it away, and you're now a de facto suspect in every crime from now on.
By which I mean, every time they get a DNA sample, they're going to run it against yours to see if you match. The same principle applies to the child safety program - sure, it sounds good to protect your kid, but they also plug that fingerprint data into the national databases. So twenty years from now, if Little Timmy ends up in the wrong bar one night, he's screwed.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant - when I enrolled in university they asked for an "emergency contact" (name and phone number). Turns out that info goes straight to the fundraising department, so that when you move, they can call your relative and "update their records". Scope creep.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about how much is kept where. I recently had to undergo a background check for work due to my access to the district attorney's networks. I don't regularly go into the sensitive areas (actually, I've never been in them), but because there's a possibility that my job would require me to look at traffic that could contain sensitive information, I had to undergo the check.
Anyway, part of it involved getting fingerprinted. I had to go to the county crime lab where a fingerprint technician use
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that a DNA profile would be much smaller storage wise than finger/hand prints would be. Also if memory serves me correctly, every DNA lab has to keep the results; when law enforcement make a query for a DNA profile, any labs with matches make themselves known and are then subpoenaed for the actually record copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that DNA will then be on record. I know law enforcement agencies (and prosecutors, for that matter) well enough to refrain from giving them any biological information wherever possible.
If I'm on trial and rationality and other evidence seems insufficient, then I'll give them a drop of blood... But I'd rather go to trial first than be part of the masses shuffled through blood-letting under suspicion so someone (anyone) can build a database of citizenry DNA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because they're not looking to exonerate you, they're looking to convict you. Because they will then keep your DNA on file and run every crime scene sample by it until one matches by chance (the odds against that are not so astronomical as the FBI would like us to believe).
nothing to hide (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe there's been at least one case in the UK of crooks spreading other people's DNA around in order to confuse the cops. I don't remember the details but I'm sure I read about it in the last year or so.
All you need to do is drop some skin flakes on the London underground and next you know you could be a suspect in a murder case.
Re: (Score:2)
All you need to do is drop some skin flakes on the London underground and next you know you could be a suspect in a murder case.
Er no, all you need to do is hire a competent defense attorney.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there's been at least one case in the UK of crooks spreading other people's DNA around in order to confuse the cops. I don't remember the details but I'm sure I read about it in the last year or so.
All you need to do is drop some skin flakes on the London underground and next you know you could be a suspect in a murder case.
I just had a picture of the scene in Fargo with the wood chopper.
You know, just spreading some innocent person's DNA around to throw the cops off...
Re:nothing to hide (Score:4, Insightful)
this from an anonymous coward
WHOOOSH!
Re: (Score:2)
And pray you don't have dandruff.
Booked for a felony no (Score:5, Interesting)
Not "entirely" innocent until proven guilty now (Score:2)
Being accused opens to the door to all manner of things now. I thought it was only after the proper execution of due process should our "rights" (privileges?) be revoked.
Re:Booked for a felony no (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I don't trust them to get the statistics right. Hammering a DNA database looking for matches will produce many false positives (due to the birthday paradox), and recent history suggests that those doing the searching will try (and likely succeed) in presenting to the jury the statistics that are correct when you test a single pair of samples.
I have serious reservations about the legitimacy of doing a wide search to see if you can find other charges to levy against someone you've picked up on suspicion of a single crime. Sure, check for outstanding warrants, and if there is actual evidence of a connection to another crime, investigate. However, I don't see that forcing someone picked up for crime A makes it ok to force him to consent to anything not directly related to that investigation.
IMHO DNA evidence should only be for defense (Score:2)
Hear hear!
IMHO DNA evidence should only be usable for defense.
- A mismatch makes it obvious that the accused (if not a chimera) is not the perpetrator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IMHO DNA evidence should only be for defense (Score:4, Insightful)
In Britain there was a case where the jury actually received instruction on Bayes' theorem and the correct statistical techniques for interpreting DNA evidence, instead of relying on gut notions and misunderstandings of how DNA matching works. When the judge discovered the jury had been given this knowledge, he threw the case out the window. Maybe someone else remembers more details. I just read this in a book.
I've heard of a similar case in the U.S., but in that case the important detail you are missing was that the statistical instruction came from one of the members of the jury, who was a statistician (or maybe microbiologist - I don't remember). The information he provided to the other jurors was correct, but the fact that the information was presented without the chance for cross examination was the sticking point. This information should have been provided by an expert witness during the trial - if it wasn't, then the defense (or prosecutor, depending on which way it goes I suppose) screwed up. Just because I'm an expert in something, doesn't mean I get to use that expertise to provide new information to the jury outside the court room - even if I'm right (and if it isn't presented in court, who will challenge it if I'm wrong?). It should, properly, be part of discovery - giving both sides a chance to review the information, ask questions, and present counter witnesses if necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear!
IMHO DNA evidence should only be usable for defense.
- A mismatch makes it obvious that the accused (if not a chimera) is not the perpetrator.
- A "match" ("non-exclusion") makes a bunch of statistical assumptions, some of which have little or no evidence in science. (Not to mention that it does poorly for excluding twins and relatives.)
So convictions should be based on OTHER things than DNA evidence.
I disagree. DNA is just one more piece of evidence for prosecutors, and that is the way it should be. Obviously, finding someone's DNA on the murder weapon doesn't automatically mean they committed the crime - but it is evidence that ties them to the weapon. But you (should) need more evidence than that one piece to convict someone of a crime.
Likewise, a fishing expedition looking for matches in a DNA database (if such a thing existed) would really only give you a place to start - here are X number of peopl
Re: (Score:2)
If you only get one match (in a DNA database), that still doesn't mean that person did it (there could be myriad reasons for their DNA to show up in these places) ...
These two statements show that, despite other things that you've said that relate to it, you're not addressing the point.
The point is that a so-called match, even if it's the only o
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the process in place does not test for an "individual's" DNA. It tries to match a set of sites together between two different DNAs and calls it a positive if they match. In large numbers (as in databases), you are going to have many matches. All a match means in the methodology used in current forensics is that the person CAN NOT BE RULED OUT. In no way can it ever mean the samples are from the same person. That would take a very different type of test.
So this database is basically meani
Re: (Score:2)
Hammering a DNA database looking for matches will produce many false positives (due to the birthday paradox),
The birthday paradox works because you are looking for any two matches, not a match on a specific date. If you have a specific DNA sequence from a crime scene, the birthday paradox doesn't apply.
Not that I disagree with you. There will still be many false positives due to the power of large numbers, and the general scientific illiteracy of potential jurors, attorneys, cops, and judges.
Re: (Score:3)
You're correct about the birthday paradox, but it still applies to the misuse of these databases. There are two ways it can come up. First, and the one I am most worried about, is a database being built with the DNA from an incomplete sample of the population, then queried when DNA evidence is found in an investigation. Because there are many such investigations and many entries in the database, the birthday paradox arises. I think this would actually be ok (statisically, not in terms of civil liberties
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, I should clarify my last paragraph. The situation I describe there is one where the birthday paradox does not arise (no extensive DNA database is involved) but I still think it's wrong to force someone to provide a sample for testing on the basis of arrest (or perhaps even conviction) if an ordinary citizen would otherwise be entitled to refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
In the absence of a specific connection between the suspect and crime B, why should he have to submit a sample simply because of his possible connection to crime A? Answer: he shouldn't.
Exactly the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You'd better study a bit before making statements :)
The DNA fingerprint taken for identification purposes gives NO information about clinical status, prone-ness for diseases or whatever else; what one could derive from different analysis on the "biological sample" is an entirely different story (systematic SNP typization can and does give deep clinically relevant information and that IS a privacy issue).
The information extracted to perform identification of subject gives far less information than your socia
Re: (Score:2)
Your optimism is astounding, and i note this in defense of my original post.
Re: (Score:2)
p.s. I only use the slippery slope logic matters w
Re: (Score:2)
For the drama of the statement: In twenty years it will be on t
Re: (Score:2)
when somebody links the DNA database to Facebook and Google user names? They don't even need "personal" information (SSN, credit cards, real name, etc) at that point to start building. Look at what researchers did with the "cleaned" Netflix database... managed to connect that to the phone book and start making educated guesses about which real people matched the "numbers only" database files.
Remember, OLD medical records become property of Doctor or insurance company for research or whatever unless the fa
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that you're posting your opinions about identifying information, as an Anonymous Coward.
And no, I still don't know where my opinion falls on the entire matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Just hope that no one with access to the database ever decides to commit a crime.
Obey. (Score:2)
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
An arrest just an accusation, not a conviction. Until it is proven that a person has committed a crime, the state has no right to obtain such data. Hell, even fingerprints should be withheld until it is proven that a person has committed a crime. That or, at the very least, all fingerprints and other personal identifying information should be removed from government control upon charges being dropped or when a person is found not guilty.
It seems that government is looking to creep further and further into people's bodies without just cause. The founder of the United States would be extremely angry at what this great nation has become.
Also, it has nothing to do with whether or not any of us have anything to hide. It is government's responsibility, within the United States, to prove anything wrong has occurred; it is not a citizen's responsibility to prove their innocence. Such a stance of "if you have nothing to hide, then you should have no problem with this" is just a euphemism for "prove you are innocent".
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to add:
I am not sure if people are aware, but many states already push hospitals to obtain DNA samples of newborns for all sorts of varied reasons. No matter, anyone with a brain can figure out what the hell the hospitals and these states are doing: They are building a DNA bank to make the state's job easier.
This is not the way this country is supposed to be run. It is time to fight to take it back to where it belongs. This will not stop at New Mexico; this will spread further.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't start at New Mexico, it spread there from California.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to add:
I am not sure if people are aware, but many states already push hospitals to obtain DNA samples of newborns for all sorts of varied reasons. No matter, anyone with a brain can figure out what the hell the hospitals and these states are doing: They are building a DNA bank to make the state's job easier.
And this one is particularly abhorrent - anyone who's been a parent knows that they're not functioning at full mental capacity for the next day or two. When the nurse brings up the consent form and rattles off all the horrible things that this test will prevent, you're not really in a good place to say "hang on, what *else* will they use it for?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that the dna test result can end up in duplicates in 1/1000 cases... we aren't testing DNA thoroughly enough to _guarantee_ that we've got the right person. Also using a DNA database, it is possible to take information from a profile already in the DB and manufacture DNA to match it. Researchers in Israel have already proven it can be done.
Me thinks there needs to be a better DNA test before we start killing people or locking them up for life based on DNA evidence. I can use using it to exonerate peo
Re: (Score:3)
If they can limit the suspects to five people, I recommend they all be invited to a dinner party at the mansion on the hill, where the detective will slowly reveal the murderer using the given clues and logic as well as a dash of theatrical skill.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is: if someone killed one of your relatives but the cops had only inconclusive circumstantial evidence that limited the suspects to 5 people, you would be against taking their fingerprints because it's just an accusation not a conviction.
“Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” - William Blackstone
Blackstone ratio [wikipedia.org] would say: yes, unless you suspect that more than 10 persons conspired to and committed the felony, you should refrain in causing an innocent to suffer.
But, in the modern world, that's antiquated, who the fsck still study it?
Now it is all about the cost of justice: and this until it is no longer about the justice but only about the cost. The more the population grow or the cost raises, t
Arrested or Convicted? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's New Mexico, but the rest of it is spot on. Take the samples if they're relevant to the investigation, but I do think there should be some rules barring the use of that DNA on other investigations without a conviction or at least some specific court order mandating it.
Re: (Score:2)
It says booked. So, this would imply that, if you are arrested for a felony charge, whether or not you are innocent, they will take a DNA sample.
Now, the right thing to do would be to either take the DNA sample once convicted OR, if it is taken upon arrest and booking, it should be held conditionally. Basically, they can use it as an investigative tool but, should you be exonerated, that sample should be destroyed or discarded. The samples should only be kept following a conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment (first and foremost in this situation)
The right to entertain whatever religion you like
The right to a trial if you are accused of another crime
Etc
Some places will remove a person's rights upon conviction, like right to vote, but that is an enormous mistake. First of all, if there are enough felony convictions
Re: (Score:2)
Arrested (Score:2)
Seriously. It is blatantly unconstitutional, and a gross violation of our civil rights, but that doesn't stop more than half of out elected officials who swore to defend and protect the constitution from voting on it. Nor did it stop the majority of the people in the state from voting for a Governor who made crap like this a major part of her platform. Although the opposition was only slightly better as she constantly bragged about her role in passing Katie's law, the forerunner to this shit.
I have no hope
Will miss you, due process (Score:5, Interesting)
The legislation will expand what's called "Katie's Law" in memory of Kathryn Sepich, a New Mexico State University student who was raped and murdered in 2003. Sepich's killer was identified more than three years later with DNA evidence after he was CONVICTED of another crime.
So why swab someone who has only been arrested?
"If we can start by matching these CRIMINALS up to their previous crimes..." --Rep. Al Park
Wow. So this is what due process has come to. Arrest = criminal. I'd like to take a jab at New Mexico but DNA testing at arrest is a nationwide effort.
Re:Will miss you, due process (Score:5, Interesting)
"But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -- US Attorney General Edwin Meese, in 1985.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty accurate. He doesn't say every arrest is guilty, only most. That sounds about right.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the last sentence:
If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
It may simply be a poor chose of phrase, but taken at face value this would mean that no innocent person is ever a suspect in a crime, ergo all suspects are guilty. The whole point of having a distinction between suspect and convict is that people who are actually innocent of a crime do sometimes end up as suspects, at least until their names are cleared. (For that matter, some people who are actually innocent find themselves becoming convicts, not just suspects.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Meese failed logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-emptive arrests (Score:3)
As opposed to "I am brought in for questioning", offered a drink of water, a cigarette, or WHATEVER as a ruse for the police to get a DNA sample, a fingerprint, etc. -- tactics that have been held to be legal in many many court cases. Why would I as a police department risk the inevitable lawsuit and serious legal expense, or the loss of a predator/violent criminal/murderous type with an arrest when I can do something much cheaper to get the DNA sample I need?
I think the bigger "security vs. freedom" issue would be along the lines of "we got a DNA sample on file for you and we can keep it and share it with anyone we want for whatever reason and you will never know who/how/why it was shared". Because we trust governments SO much to only do the right things with our personal information, to never allow their databases to be sold, shared, hacked, etc., right?
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to "I am brought in for questioning", offered a drink of water, a cigarette, or WHATEVER as a ruse for the police to get a DNA sample, a fingerprint, etc. -- tactics that have been held to be legal in many many court cases. Why would I as a police department risk the inevitable lawsuit and serious legal expense, or the loss of a predator/violent criminal/murderous type with an arrest when I can do something much cheaper to get the DNA sample I need?
The big risk with these sorts of 'fill the database' rules isn't in getting a sample of a suspected perp - as you point out, that's easy. It is to allow for fishing expeditions - potentially along a grand scale. Just plug the 'number' into a computer and poof - problem solved. Of course, that's not quite true. There are serious issues with data fidelity and the statistical accuracy of the testing. But that's just some little technical detail, not of much interest to those politicians and DA's who want
Needs safeguards. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
An ironclad absolute guarantee, the samples will definitely not be destroyed.
"the modern day equivalent to fingerprinting" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If fingerprints so inaccurate, doesn't that speak to the further need of DNA to identify criminals?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the current level of DNA comparison is completely accurate.
cant they just put us in pods and be done with it (Score:2)
Hmm so basically we are saying fuck due process and everyone is eventually guilty of something? I was arrested once for a warrant that ended up being someone else with the same name, it was straightened out in a couple of hours (actually in about 5 minutes but I spend 2 hours in a holding cell waiting for them to get around to me) from what I was told it happens all the time. I wouldn't have a problem with dna samples for felony convictions but this is ridiculous. Its amazing how much of our own personal
How private is your DNA? (Score:2)
The thing with DNA is that you have a tendency to scatter it around. That's the whole point of testing: not the DNA that has to be taken from you, but the DNA that somebody left voluntarily at the crime scene.
Your face is already not particularly private. If the cops are looking for you, and they see your face, they're going to say, "Hey, it's that guy", and nobody is going to bring up privacy concerns. A very few people make a point of hiding their faces all the time, but it's inconvenient and unpleasan
Re: (Score:2)
The Ultimate ID (Score:2)
DNA is not a unique ID. (Score:2)
Eventually, our DNA became our ID.
DNA is not a unique ID.
- Identical twins (and other clones) share it - to about the extent that one part of your body shares it with another.
- Releatives, especially among small population groups, share most of it. Enough to make "matches" require an inordinate number of markers to be reliable.
- Some people are chimeras - with different parts of their bodies from different egg-sperm combinations.
- And then there are transplant recipients...
F
I personally don't care - sort of (Score:2)
Re:I personally don't care - sort of (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? If you are arrested, they already have your fingerprints. If you are exonerated, they still keep your fingerprints on file.
And they should be deleted too.
You appear to be saying 'because the police do this bad thing, we should let them do other bad things too'. Taking DNA on arrest is now standard practice in the UK and even though the EU has told them they must delete it if the suspect turns out to be innocent, they've taken two years and a change of government to start to delete some. It's just another attempt to create a big police state database.
Re: (Score:2)
Removal? (Score:2)
If the DNA and the resulting info is destroyed after suspect is released of found innocent; not a huge problem.
If the DNA and the resulting info are kept in perpetuity, big problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And what government instituted among men is going to destroy something so potentially useful—to them, of course, not to the citizenry.
23andMe (Score:3)
If the Government takes a DNA sample, they should be required to run it through 23andMe [23andme.com] and give you the results for free. That would provide some benefit. The "criminal" DNA matching systems are far cruder than the 100,000 point analysis 23andMe does.
What about the right to have DNA tests done? (Score:2)
What's next, PMITA Prison for arrests? (Score:3)
So, upon ARREST (not conviction), the state can do anything like like to you? I guess that's fair, considering the government can now sexually assault you for the crime of buying an airline ticket.
We are living in a country where citizens rights have evaporated, so you can be "safe". My question is: Safe from what? I now fear the authorities more than any terrorist or criminal - because it's more likely that THEY will assault me at some point, violate what little rights I have left, and maybe even accidentally torture, maim, or kill me.
These days you can be tazed for speaking out at a public hearing, or beaten to death for crossing the street. I suspect it's only a matter of time before arrest == PMITA prison time before any kind of trial, just to get you "warmed up" for your new life as a criminal.
Prosecutor's fallacy (Score:2)
After convictions, ok. After arrests == bullshit. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because once it's in the papers, it's the truth.
Nothing to hide? Protecting the public? (Score:2)
I would be all in favor of this IF it also included any and ALL elected officials and anyone serving the public such as Judges, DA's and police officers.
These people above all should have absolutely nothing to hide and should be forced to deal with the false positives just as much if not more than the average person.
For convicts, maybe. (Score:2)
DNA matchups are not nearly as accurate as many prosecutors would have you believe, and are also prone to errors. As others have stated, there must be adequate safeguards:
A second DNA sequence should be made by a different lab for confirmation. If they don't match each other, then a third. (DNA sequencing is MUCH cheaper than it used to be. That is not an undue burden.)
A suspect should have the right to get a test of their own
"Convict criminals"....what? (Score:2)
Am I the only person who is immediately suspicious when they said "convict criminals"?
Someone isn't a criminal until they are tried and found guilty. Using the language of "convict criminals" it is assumed that the people accused are guilty anyway, so why even both with their civil rights.....
What Budget? (Score:3)
I'm from New Mexico, and I'm wondering where our fearless new leader left her fiery campaign promises about the budget.
So far her big accomplishments have been:
To dissolve environmental regulations to the best of her abilities (to pay back her big energy campaign donors, even if her methods were possibly illegal)
Try to institute a very expensive overhaul of our drivers' licenses (because despite being named Martinez she seems to hate brown people enough that it clouds her judgement. Illegal immigrants get licenses for a very simple reason here: so they can get insurance -- so that the rest of us don't pay absurd[er] premiums.)
After campaigning on a promise to balance the budget without cutting education say "oh, never mind, we might have to cut education" within a week of being elected.
Now she's instituting this? I can't imagine it'll be cheap either.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Republicans talk a big talk on fiscal responsibility, but can't walk the walk unless it's going to help them shit on the heads of poor people. All promises of fiscal responsibility also go right out the window when it comes to chances to edge closer to a police state or go to war.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that, they might legitimately arrest somebody and then find out later that the individual is in fact innocent or that there was no crime committed. At which point you've now arrested somebody and tested their DNA. Any bets as to whether or not they destroy the sample once they've checked it?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they purge your fingerprints from the system in the same circumstances?
Re: (Score:3)
No. And that gives reason for us not to trust them with DNA.
Re:Police trolling for DNA (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that any arrest that doesn't lead to charges being filed (and not dropped) should require financial compensation, and any criminal trial in which the charges do not meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence (the standard used in civil cases) should require a hell of a lot more financial compensation.
There should be a serious disincentive for the police to arrest people without cause.
Re: (Score:2)
the reason for the arrest should be recorded within a very short time of it being made (5 minutes, say, in most cases), and the rule about charges being filed should require those charges to relate to the reason for the arrest, just so there's no dodging the consequences of making a wrongful arrest because you eventually got them for something.
This wouldn't preclude persuing charges on whatever else, but would mean that persuing those charges wouldn't prevent the initial arrest from being deemed to be false
Re: (Score:2)
I am more of the mind that any officer above a statical average of dismissals should be fired (yes, fired) with prejudice, but any case, police can and do arrest for no reason, resulting in jail time and court time and huge incurrence of loss on the part of the falsely accused all the time.
It is an extreme affront to our rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Any arrest that does not lead to charges should result in assault and kidnapping charges against the arresting officer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love stories like this. Why were you arrested TWICE? What made "some cop not like you"?
Perhaps he was arrested during protests against the erosion of his civil rights.