Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest

[GAP]

For some reason I can't find the security forum for this....please move for me if this does not suit.....

Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest
By Douglas Quan, Postmedia News May 27, 2013
Article Link

"Book 'em" could carry a whole new meaning at police stations in Canada if lawmakers are swayed to make a controversial change to the Criminal Code.

A growing number of law enforcement representatives are calling for new powers to collect DNA from criminal suspects at the time of their arrest, not just upon their conviction.

They say the law already allows authorities to get fingerprints and photographs when someone is taken into custody. "In the name of community safety, let's address this issue. I think it's a no-brainer," said Paul Wozney, president of the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, which has been trying to drum up support for the idea through media interviews and appeals to members of Parliament.

Proponents say allowing DNA collection upon arrest would allow police to identify repeat offenders sooner. Years can pass before a trial is held.

They also point out that convicted offenders who are ordered by a judge to submit a DNA sample - but who are not required to serve jail time - often won't show up to give that sample.

Wozney said police are not looking to get DNA samples from everyone who is arrested, just those who are arrested for more serious crimes, such as murder, kidnapping, robbery, arson and break-and-enter. And if a suspect ends up being found not guilty, the DNA sample would be destroyed.
More on link

 

[cupper]

It has created some challenges south of the border, and was deliberated earlier this year by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Debate Continues: DNA samples at time of arrest?

http://ivn.us/independent-americans/2013/03/04/supreme-court-debate-continues-dna-samples-at-time-of-arrest/

“I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.

The response came in on Tuesday, a reaction to the US Supreme Court’s current debate over whether or not police officers can take DNA samples from suspects they’ve arrested.

Maryland v. King No. 12-207, the case open before the court today was built from a 2009 event in Wicomico County, MD. DNA was obtained from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after he was incarcerated on assault charges. After running his DNA through the system, King’s sample also matched evidence collected from a 2003 rape. He was subsequently convicted of that crime.

Last April, Maryland’s Court of Appeals ruled against authorizing DNA collection those arrested –but not yet convicted. According to the new state law, this preemptive practice violates the rights the 4th Amendment guarantees – probable cause.

Justice Alito argues it’s worth the compromise: “This is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.”

But, Alito’s leanings are not indicative of how the court will rule. For Justice Antonin Scalia this is not so cut-and-dried. “I’ll bet you if you conducted a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you’d get more convictions, too. That proves absolutely nothing.”

Scalia spoke in the context of hearing that Maryland had obtained 42 convictions based on DNA from people arrested there.
Collecting DNA from people convicted of crimes is not the issue in today’s case. The question is, rather, whether sampling DNA before trail infringes on US constitutional rights.

Chief justice, Elena Kagan, appeared apprehensive of going too far, too fast. “Why don’t we do this for everybody who comes in for a driver’s license because it’s very effective?” she asked hypothetically.

There must be legal limits saying an arrest would not justify the search of an individual’s home for “possible evidence of an unrelated crime.”

Practically speaking, the major question the court is working to answer is one of technology. Is DNA this century’s fingerprint?

Several justices seemed interested in using DNA evidence to assist America’s judges in bail sentencing. For now, they were told lab turnaround times are too long to make that a deciding factor.

Another aspect which is working it's way through the lower levels is the retention of DNA samples after an acquittal.

 

[2 Cdo]

Nope, nada, no way and hell no way.

Upon a conviction I have no issues, but not on arrest.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Nope, nada, no way and hell no way.

Upon a conviction I have no issues, but not on arrest.

Why??..............we take fingerprints and a picture upon arrest.  DNA is just an easier way to ID without mistakes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest

If true, the only correct response is "Fvck off, pigs" *.

* "A Fish Called Wanda."

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well that was certainly deep and enlightning.

So try and come up with an answer to my "why not?"

 

[dapaterson]

The question for any surrender of freedom must be "Why?", not "Why not"

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That's easy,..........100% certain of identity.
Good for public safety and certainly good for those who are worried about false accusations against them.



nothing to hide= nothing to fear

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and I certainly don't see it as a "surrender of freedoms".  it's an identification tool, nothing more, nothing less.

...and certainly a lot less invasive than getting fingerprinted. [especially if you wish to resist the process]

 

[2 Cdo]

Why??..............we take fingerprints and a picture upon arrest.  DNA is just an easier way to ID without mistakes.

If I provide picture ID on arrest and you take my fingerprints why do you need DNA?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Pictures and fingerprints can be changed/altered.............your DNA can't.

Heck, we could get rid of those two things so in sementics you would be gaining 'freedom' dapaterson.

 

[cupper]

That's easy,..........100% certain of identity.
Good for public safety and certainly good for those who are worried about false accusations against them.



nothing to hide= nothing to fear

Nothing is every 100% certain.

Personally I don't have a problem with the idea, but it does raise a lot of legal issues which will take up a lot of court time.

 

[cupper]

Pictures and fingerprints can be changed/altered.............your DNA can't.

Heck, we could get rid of those two things so in sementics you would be gaining 'freedom' dapaterson.

No, DNA can't be altered, but the sequencing can be screwed up. And the time frame to do the testing may result in significant delays. And by now creating a larger demand on lab time, it will only clog the system up worse.

 

[2 Cdo]

Pictures and fingerprints can be changed/altered.............your DNA can't.

Heck, we could get rid of those two things so in sementics you would be gaining 'freedom' dapaterson.

Like I said Bruce, if convicted of a violent crime no problem. Arrested for something minor, forget it.

 

[Container]

The article is terribly written.

In the Criminal Code there is a section that defines "primary" and "secondary" offences- these are the only offences that somebody can have DNA taken and stored on the databank for. There is significant delay and issue getting the court ordered samples onto the databank because we cant get the samples once the person leaves the court room. Despite authority to.

They are looking for authority to get the swab done when the person is arrested for the primary offence at the time they are arrested and charged- rather than after conviction. Its actually relatively easy to remove things from the bank.

It isnt public intoxication or speeding: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nddb-bndg/form/ddo-did-eng.htm

Im of two minds on the matter- but if it was reserved specifically for primary- compulsory offences than maybe....BUT....they need to add more funding to the labs for this (and we just closed three of our six) because the backlog is attrocious.

 

[Container]

Like I said Bruce, if convicted of a violent crime no problem. Arrested for something minor, forget it.

What if arrested/charged for a violent crime (like primary compulsory from the link)?

Which is the actual suggestion?

 

[FJAG]

That's easy,..........100% certain of identity.
Good for public safety and certainly good for those who are worried about false accusations against them.



nothing to hide= nothing to fear

Taking DNA on arrest does not assist in identifying the individual's identity unless you already have their DNA in a database.

All that taking a person's DNA on arrest does is create evidence which can be used against the individual vis a vis other unsolved crimes where DNA has been left behind or for future crimes where the individual may leave trace DNA evidence.

If you want to make it real simple, Bruce then change the laws so that every child born in Canada has its DNA taken and every person who crosses our border has to give a DNA sample. That way we'll have a 100% data base.
:sarcasm:

I don't yet wear a tinfoil hat nor have I joined the freemen on the land -- but if Vic Toews and the Chiefs of Police cabal keep at it ...

op:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Taking DNA on arrest does not assist in identifying the individual's identity unless you already have their DNA in a database.

All that taking a person's DNA on arrest does is create evidence which can be used against the individual vis a vis other unsolved crimes where DNA has been left behind or for future crimes where the individual may leave trace DNA evidence.

Gee, maybe I'm just a dumb Guard, but that sounds a heck of a lot like the job fingerprints have been doing for years to me.

 

[Dissident]

I'm with FJAG and dapaterson on this.

You should need a warrant or a convinction in order to get DNA samples, IMHO.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No one has explained why though.

I MUST take your fingerprints and picture when you pass through my doors even if it involves using force.  I can get a sample of DNA a whole lot easier and, the backlog notwithstanding as that's just a money problem, it will be a lot more useful to law enforcement folks in the future.