Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS to decide on DNA collection in rape case. (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Completely agree. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb137, webranding, dufffbeer

    Not without a court order.

    The captioned case seems to hinge upon the collection of DNA -- what the defendant argued was an illegal search -- and the "fishing expedition" undertaken to match his DNA to past, unsolved crimes with DNA samples/records on file...  Where was the reasonable suspicion or cause for the search?

    ugh.

    I am HATING the "logical conclusion" of my own argument...that is, letting the perpetrator of a heinous crime walk on a technicality??!!!??...double ugh!!

    Still...::sigh::...that "slippery slope" thing.

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:01:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I Am So With You. I Hate Where (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb137, Marjmar, notrouble

      my comments here lead. I mean there are so many unsolved violent crimes in the US. What stops law enforcement maybe saying in the years ahead we just need DNA from everyone so we can run it?

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:05:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Taking that another way (0+ / 0-)

      If I'm stopped for speeding, and my name is entered into the computer, the system is not allowed to tell the cop who stopped me that by the way I'm wanted in three states on suspicion of kidnapping and murder? After all, it has nothing to do with a traffic violation, so having my name show up for something else would be fishing, right?

      •  No because you have already passed the point (0+ / 0-)

        of either probable cause or reasonable suspicion for those crimes. In an arrest for one you don't automatically have it for others.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 04:10:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I would argue that probable cause (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb137

      existed for the first crime (the one he was currently being held for).  He can't argue that once they have his DNA, they can't compare it to DNA for other unsolved crimes.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site