FBI, states expanding DNA databases

[IDemo]

By Solomon Moore
New York Times
updated 1 hour, 18 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.

Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will also collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.

The F.B.I., with a DNA database of 6.7 million profiles, expects to accelerate its rate of growth from 80,000 new entries a year to 1.2 million by 2012 — a 17-fold increase. F.B.I. officials say they expect DNA processing backlogs — which now stand at more than 500,000 cases — to increase.

Law enforcement officials say that expanding the DNA databanks to include legally innocent people will help solve more violent crimes. They point out that DNA has helped convict thousands of criminals and has exonerated more than 200 wrongfully convicted people.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30283252/

[paulsby]

1. we do it with fingerprints nt

[ixion]

2. That doesn't make it right... we shouldn't be doing it with anything

that is what "guilty until proven innocent" is all about, that, and it's a rather massive invasion of privacy, and thus very freakin' unconstitutional.

[paulsby]

3. it's none of that

it is also at least de jure constitutional (fingerprints specifically).

they are an identifier.

they also protect the innocent as much as they help convict the guilty.

i was simply drawing an analogy that pre-conviction IDENTIFYING info gathering is neither unconstitutional nor bad policy.

[ixion]

4. I disagree

You are, of course, entitled to you opinion, but I must respectfully disagree.

In a free country, a citizen has a right to privacy. There is no need for a government agency to have an identifier. If someone wants to be fingerprinted for identity purposes: great. Forcing that same act on a person who has not been convicted of a crime violates a free citizen's right to privacy.

[paulsby]

5. some points

1) there is no federal right to privacy (per se). there is a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. my state DOES recognize a right to privacy (WA ) but even an independent grounds reading of our state const. does not see a privacy violation in the taking of identifiers given probable cause to arrest and.or a warrant.

2) identifiers act to protect people, as well as assist the govt. even with photo at booking, the only CERTAIN way to distinguish an arrestee from any other person is that they have individualized fingerprints (and DNA fwiw). you get arrested, and the only way to distinguish you (positively) is your fingerprints. arrestees frequently give false names, etc. and/.or people have similar/same names.

fwiw, i don't even need a warrant or arrest to get your fingerprints. if you throw away a soda can , i can recover it and dust it for prints. your fingerprints are evidence you leave CONSTANTLY on nearly everything you touch.

[ixion]

10. I don't see the world in terms of "evidence"

which presupposes that everyone is a criminal.

Such is the slippery slope of authoritarianism, and why I'm against it.

Per your points: Our government has shown in no uncertain terms that it doesn't like us very much, if at all. So the fact that they offer more progressively narrow viewpoints is no big surprise, but that still doesn't make it right, or constitutional.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

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.

* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What we've seen over the years is a continued narrowing over what contitutes "unreasonable" and "probable cause." These two ambiguous terms have been the hinge pins allowing our descent into a police state. "Secure in their persons...," though, is pretty straight forward.

So in the sense of the police state that has taken taken root in our once free society, you are correct. In the spirit of the Constitution, though, I must maintain my original premise.

[paulsby]

12. well then you haven't been paying attention to case law

in numerous cases, there has been an EXPANDING of what constitutes reasonable, probable cause, etc. and in some cases a narrowing.

i follow the case law. it is NOT one sided. in some cases it has gone one way, in other cases it ihas gone the other way.

the idea that we have a "police state' is laughable. spend some time in a REAL police state (i have) and get back to me.

[ixion]

13. A country that can wiretap my phone, data mine my records, detain me without due process

-- hence not even probable cause -- is most certainly a police state, and I find nothing laughable about it whatsoever, other than the ludicrousness of claiming that what we have doesn't constitute creeping fascism.

Incidentally, I have traveled through police states of varying shades. And, while we might put smiley faces on our fascism, that doesn't change it's true nature.

[SoCalDem]

6. Actually, I don't mind this..

If you "brush up against" the law, providing a DNA sample should be the norm..Many cases are dismissed/solved by DNA elimination...and many unsolved crimes may end up being solved..saving more lives and lots of time..

and yes..I DO know that not ALL people accused, are guilty and blah blah blah, "some" truly innocent bystander might get rousted up and taken to jail..blah blah blah..and his/her DNA might be in the database too... If they are truly upstanding folks and never commit a crime in the future, their DNA will not crawl out of the computer and convict them of anything..:)

[ixion]

9. "some" truly innocent bystander might get rousted up and taken to jail..blah blah blah.

I'll bet you wouldn't "blah blah blah" it if that bystander was you. ;)

[SoCalDem]

11. I would gladly give my DNA to clear things up

and I would expect to be asked:)

[arcadian]

7. Susan Boyle

[Indy Lurker]

8. The problem, is that it puts you on the "short list"

A lot of times the police only get a partial print, not enough to to be good evidence, but enough to generate "possible matches" with the database.

I don't know if DNA has these problems (partial matches with low quality samples) but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

And that doesn't even include legitimate mistakes with data and records. These should get straightened out in due time, but if your not in the database, there's no chance of it happening.