DwightDeGroff.com - Tech that Matters

Lee Bains over at Switched first turned me on to this story, Washington State lawmakers are pushing to have a controversial proposal approved by Legislature
Suspects arrested in cases as minor as shoplifting would have to give a DNA sample before they are even charged with a crime if a controversial proposal is approved by the Legislature.
There are a number of issues that I have with this: practical, ethical and legal.

1. Doesn’t the justice system cost tax-payers enough already without taking DNA samples from every shoplifter? As Lee says, “Can’t we just put aside our creepy ‘Brave New World’ ideas until after the economic crisis?”
2. DNA says A LOT about someone. It can indicate certain traits and conditions, flaws, propensities towards certain behaviors. What if Jimmy and Bobby Jimmerson are arrested on suspicion of illegal drug usage and Jimmy’s DNA reveals that he might have a propensity towards using addictive substances while Bobby’s does not. Furthermore, let’s say there’s no other evidence that either has committed any crime. What now? Should what makes up a person cause Jimmy to be charged, but his brother let free? What are the risks associated with maintaining a DNA database of so many people? What are the risks of this data being stolen or misused? Do these risks outweigh the benefits?
3. What happened to “Innocent until proven guilty”? I’m sure that this policy would make solving crimes much easier. Torturing those we arrest would also expedite the process, as would eliminating the need for a warrant before performing a search-and-seizure. I think you get my point – that DNA collection provides convenience for law enforcement efforts should not be reason enough for infringing on our 4th amendment rights.
   

   “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.” (emphasis mine, courtesy of FindLaw.com

   I can’t help but feel that taking DNA samples from those arrested, before they are even charged with a crime is an unreasonable search, is not justified under the “special needs exception” and is therefore unconstitutional.

Read more after the jump!

That’s not all though – numerous states (California, Virginia and South Dakota to name three) and the federal government already allow law enforcement to collect DNA from suspects before they are convicted. Every heard of the “DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005″? No?

I encourage anyone looking for a more in-depth analysis of this far-reaching issue to read an article entitled, “Who Needs Special Needs? On the Constitutionality of Collecting DNA and Other Biometric Data from Arrestee“, by David H. Kaye. I also welcome your thoughts and discussion on the issue – I would enjoy some other perspectives.

Post a Comment