ForumGarden

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

Wed Apr 16, 7:39 PM ET





WASHINGTON - 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.

___

already happens in the uk

finger prints dna and photo

Why stop with DNA? They should take fecal, urine and blood samples as well.:-3

Works for me they can have DNA, Blood, Tissue, you name it.

Lon;841615 wrote: Why stop with DNA? They should take fecal, urine and blood samples as well.:-3
DNA takes care of all that. Completely unethical, imo. The military took a sample from me; I gave consent under duress. Hell only knows what some future embecile might want to do with it.

Accountable;841920 wrote: DNA takes care of all that. Completely unethical, imo. The military took a sample from me; I gave consent under duress. Hell only knows what some future embecile might want to do with it.


There is much useful data that can be obtained from blood, urine and feces that is not obtainable from DNA.:-3

It's a complete and unnecessary invasion of privacy. Once again they will get away with it because people will say "anything to catch a criminal." I am against this.

Lon;841615 wrote: Why stop with DNA? They should take fecal, urine and blood samples as well.:-3


I actually collect that already. On the sly of course.

Sounds good to me, whatever helps the police do their job.

Lon;841934 wrote: There is much useful data that can be obtained from blood, urine and feces that is not obtainable from DNA.:-3
Yes there is. I'm awake now.

mikeinie;841999 wrote: Sounds good to me, whatever helps the police do their job.
They could do their jobs alot more efficiently if they didn't have to waste time getting warrants. Also, it would be very helpful if all house locks were required to be of the same type, so the police could have a single master key to get into any home they deemed necessary.

Accountable;842005 wrote: They could do their jobs alot more efficiently if they didn't have to waste time getting warrants. Also, it would be very helpful if all house locks were required to be of the same type, so the police could have a single master key to get into any home they deemed necessary.


Watch out for the bucket of water up there and other booby traps, law enforcement dudes............:wah:

Accountable;842005 wrote: They could do their jobs alot more efficiently if they didn't have to waste time getting warrants. Also, it would be very helpful if all house locks were required to be of the same type, so the police could have a single master key to get into any home they deemed necessary.


I agree that always having to get a warrent before getting to do anything is quite inefficient sometimes, but it's for our own protection. If cops could just do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, then there are some bad cops who would take advantage of that and use it negatively.

Also, if there was such a thing as a Master Key for every house in America, can you imagine how disastrous that would be if it fell into the wrong hands, such as a thief??? Or even if a cop lost his copy and someone found it... no, there's a reason why all locks have unique keys. Of course it won't prevent someone with the right tools from opening it, but it is just one more obsticle to a thief. At least it won't be as easy like if there was some all-unlocking key.

As for the DNA collecting, I personally don't see it being all that different from taking and collecting fingerprints. Even though there have been cases of two people having the same DNA samples, it is very rare. Of course a person should never be convicted based on one piece of evidence alone, but having DNA included in the pile of evidence is very helpful.

Sapphire_Alchemist;842029 wrote: I agree that always having to get a warrent before getting to do anything is quite inefficient sometimes, but it's for our own protection. If cops could just do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, then there are some bad cops who would take advantage of that and use it negatively.



Also, if there was such a thing as a Master Key for every house in America, can you imagine how disastrous that would be if it fell into the wrong hands, such as a thief??? Or even if a cop lost his copy and someone found it... no, there's a reason why all locks have unique keys. Of course it won't prevent someone with the right tools from opening it, but it is just one more obsticle to a thief. At least it won't be as easy like if there was some all-unlocking key.



As for the DNA collecting, I personally don't see it being all that different from taking and collecting fingerprints. Even though there have been cases of two people having the same DNA samples, it is very rare. Of course a person should never be convicted based on one piece of evidence alone, but having DNA included in the pile of evidence is very helpful.
Hi, SA. We haven't met, I was being sarcastic in my post. :wah:



The major difference between prints and DNA is that researchers are studying how to replicate DNA. I don't want that camel's nose under the tent.

Accountable;842034 wrote: Hi, SA. We haven't met, I was being sarcastic in my post. :wah:



The major difference between prints and DNA is that researchers are studying how to replicate DNA. I don't want that camel's nose under the tent.


Hi Accountable! I'm sorry, I thought you were serious about the master key thing .

I forgot about the fact that they want to replicate DNA... but even still, I think collecting DNA would be useful in helping to identify criminals.