Judge upholds ruling on Mandatory DNA samples of accused

Wow. We're...starting to become the U.K. They started out their fascist trend with wanting indefinite detention and they started collecting fingerprints and other biometric data on everyone...innocent, guilty, infants, the elderly when they were in the hospital. Of course it violates our civil liberties. There's a good reason we only did it to convicted criminals before this point -- they were guilty and we needed the power to track them down in case they did something like that again. To keep this information on innocents is to have that same ability. And for what reason? What good reason could you possibly have for that? So they were arrested...but they were found innocent! The only reason you'd have for that, is if you want control. Which is clearly against what this nation was supposed to stand for and was founded on. Of course it's a violation of our civil liberties. It does equate to unreasonable search and seizure. I'm sure it's worse on another level too, but I can't think of it. This is dreadful.

Taken the DNA of someone who is just accused is a clear violation of civil liberties. My state is looking to make this law and the DNA would only be destroyed if the defendant win, of course, and if the court orders the defendants DNA destroyed. Make sure you understand the DNA is not automatically destroyed, a court has to decide whether the DNA gets destroyed or not. So how I see this going the state will arrest people, take their DNA and just hold on to it for as long as they deem necessary, which just scares me.

If DNA testing is a violation of rights in this case than taking fingerprints would also be a violation of rights and I think that is done rather routinely. The truth is that DNA like fingerprinting is a tool that cuts both ways. It can free the innocent and it can convict the guilty. They now know that many murderers and rapists are serial crimminals and they are often picked up for minor offences and suspicion for crimes they may or may not have committed and let go. If their DNA went into a national bank when they were arrested for suspicion of something relatively minor, we'd all be a lot safer. May be we should all be DNA tested at birth or in school so we could get everybody's DNA into a data base and still be politically correct. it could also be helpful with child abductions.

So if you are innocent, what do you have against them taking your DNA, where I live there has been several earlier crimes such as murder and rape that the DNA they took after the person was arrested had to give. You scream it violates your rights, but would feel different if it was you raped, or one of your loved one murdered. Any help that they can get to solve an earlier crime is great, and I have no problem with it. When you are arrested they take your finger prints, they don't throw them away if you are found innocent. So what is the difference. I don't think it is done to violate anyone. And who know they may be innocent for what they was arrested for that time, but who knows what they have been into before.

I would definately say that it violates the fourth amendment, anyone of us can be accused of something and our system says we are innocent until proven guilty. This is an example of stepping over that grey line. You can teeter and totter over what you want but you will not get me to give up my dna without being convicted of a crime.

Yes, it's a violation of the fourth amendment and I certainly hope someone jumps on this and gets it overturned. You don't lose your constitutional rights when you're arrested or charged...I don't care who they think you are or whatever other excuse they come up with. Just when you think you've heard it all.....

I'll probably suprise a few people here, but I really don't see a problem with this at all. We put people in jail before they are convicted, don't we? That completely ignores the presumption of innocence. Hollows is right that being arrested brings on a "diminished expectation of privacy". In fact, merely being a suspect reduces a person's expectations of privacy. I don't have to be convicted to have police issued warrants to search my property, tap my phone or be followed. We leave our DNA laying around everywhere we go. We can't demand privacy for something we never keep to ourselves in the first place.