Another unconsutional act.

Would you hand over your DNA to any authorities?

yes	21.1%	[ 4 ]
no	78.9%	[ 15 ]
Total Votes:			[ 19 ]

This poll closed on September 12, 2013.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Gustave Papillon]

In the current news, we have just heard that if you commit horrific crime you will have to hand over you DNA to the authorities. However, I would like to remind everyone of the 4th amendment, which reads this: "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" Note, what it is telling us. That we have the right of property and privacy, and they need a "Warrant" in order to search. Ergo, What the Prime Court of Justice just did is this: ironed the 4th amendment and thought they would be clever, but they failed. Thus, lets start a Poll. Answer it and then explain.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

From what I heard, the news is that police can collect your DNA after you are arrested but before you are convicted.

[Ammo Amy]

Odd. The Supreme Court just declared it "Constitutional", so how can you state it is otherwise?

[Gustave Papillon]

Ammo Amy

Odd. The Supreme Court just declared it "Constitutional", so how can you state it is otherwise?

Your Dna is part of your belongings; ergo that would inrfingre the 4th amendment and it would self incrimate you which breaks the 5th one, which i did not post but could have.

[Wendigo]

I might if they let me patent it first.

[Ban]

Aniolel

Ammo Amy

Odd. The Supreme Court just declared it "Constitutional", so how can you state it is otherwise?

Your Dna is part of your belongings; ergo that would inrfingre the 4th amendment and it would self incrimate you which breaks the 5th one, which i did not post but could have.

Yes, but arrests are made upon probable cause, and searches of a person who is arrested are generally considered on the basis of that probable cause. It's technically the same reason that when they arrest somebody on the streets for, say, jaywalking, they can turn out your pockets to see if you a gun or drugs.

This is much like fingerprinting, which does basically the same thing with different technology. It looks to see if there is evidence you have committed a crime besides the instant one, and also helps construct a history of behavior.

Worrisome? Yes. Unconstitutional? Probably not. If the police were just randomly stopping people on the street and demanding cheek swabs, that would probably violate the 4th amendment. This, while I don't really like it, probably is legally the correct decision.

[Gustave Papillon]

Ban

Aniolel

Ammo Amy

Odd. The Supreme Court just declared it "Constitutional", so how can you state it is otherwise?

Your Dna is part of your belongings; ergo that would inrfingre the 4th amendment and it would self incrimate you which breaks the 5th one, which i did not post but could have.

Yes, but arrests are made upon probable cause, and searches of a person who is arrested are generally considered on the basis of that probable cause. It's technically the same reason that when they arrest somebody on the streets for, say, jaywalking, they can turn out your pockets to see if you a gun or drugs.

This is much like fingerprinting, which does basically the same thing with different technology. It looks to see if there is evidence you have committed a crime besides the instant one, and also helps construct a history of behavior.

Worrisome? Yes. Unconstitutional? Probably not. If the police were just randomly stopping people on the street and demanding cheek swabs, that would probably violate the 4th amendment. This, while I don't really like it, probably is legally the correct decision.

Umm...do you want to self incriminate yourself?

[Ammo Amy]

Aniolel

Ammo Amy

Odd. The Supreme Court just declared it "Constitutional", so how can you state it is otherwise?

Your Dna is part of your belongings; ergo that would inrfingre the 4th amendment and it would self incrimate you which breaks the 5th one, which i did not post but could have.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what's Constitutional or not and they determined this was by a 5-4 decision. If you have a problem with that, I recommend you take it up with them. You may not like what they decide, but they are the final decision-making body. Maybe in the future, some other Supreme Court will reverse the decision, but that's not going to happen until:

1. Different people are chosen after these people are gone and
2. The case is brought back up before them again.

Having the Supreme Court reverse itself doesn't happen very often as it's usually considered "settled law".

Of course, Congress could create a law that prohibits the use of such techniques, but good luck with getting anything of the sort done with THAT bunch as it stands right now. Since 2010, these has been the least productive Congressional sessions in history.

[Gustave Papillon]

Ammo Amy

Aniolel

Ammo Amy

Odd. The Supreme Court just declared it "Constitutional", so how can you state it is otherwise?

Your Dna is part of your belongings; ergo that would inrfingre the 4th amendment and it would self incrimate you which breaks the 5th one, which i did not post but could have.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what's Constitutional or not and they determined this was by a 5-4 decision. If you have a problem with that, I recommend you take it up with them. You may not like what they decide, but they are the final decision-making body. Maybe in the future, some other Supreme Court will reverse the decision, but that's not going to happen until:

1. Different people are chosen after these people are gone and
2. The case is brought back up before them again.

Having the Supreme Court reverse itself doesn't happen very often as it's usually considered "settled law".

Of course, Congress could create a law that prohibits the use of such techniques, but good luck with getting anything of the sort done with THAT bunch as it stands right now. Since 2010, these has been the least productive Congressional sessions in history.

That is true, but they should have know about the Constitution and what is and what is not unconstitutional. This counts as ternary.

[Ban]

Aniolel

Umm...do you want to self incriminate yourself?

This isn't self-incrimination.

The right against self-incrimination is fairly limited. It only really means that you have a right not to testify against yourself or provide spoken or written evidence of wrong doing. The police can still, upon reasonable suspicion, stop and frisk people, do visual searches of vehicles, or use K-9 units to detect drugs. With probable cause, which is necessary for the situation that is being described in this case, police can do thorough searches of your person and fingerprint you, and usually get a warrant to search your home.

Again, this isn't much different than being compelled to provide fingerprints with probable cause, which has been the accepted practice for decades.

[Gustave Papillon]

Ask yourself what does this have to do with what happen:
"No person shall be held to answer for a 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."

and btw this is what self incrimating means: making statements or producing evidence which tends to prove that one is guilty of a crime. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that one cannot "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." and the 14th Amendment applies that guarantee to state cases. Thus refusing to testify in court on the basis that the testimony may be self-incriminating is called "taking the Fifth.

[Lord aKHAANaton]

Aniolel

Ammo Amy

Odd. The Supreme Court just declared it "Constitutional", so how can you state it is otherwise?

Your Dna is part of your belongings; ergo that would inrfingre the 4th amendment and it would self incrimate you which breaks the 5th one, which i did not post but could have.

Is a sobriety test self-incrimination?

[METALFumasu]

Ban

Aniolel

Umm...do you want to self incriminate yourself?

This isn't self-incrimination.

The right against self-incrimination is fairly limited. It only really means that you have a right not to testify against yourself or provide spoken or written evidence of wrong doing. The police can still, upon reasonable suspicion, stop and frisk people, do visual searches of vehicles, or use K-9 units to detect drugs. With probable cause, which is necessary for the situation that is being described in this case, police can do thorough searches of your person and fingerprint you, and usually get a warrant to search your home.

Again, this isn't much different than being compelled to provide fingerprints with probable cause, which has been the accepted practice for decades.

Actually, DNA is a little different than fingerprints, in the sense that it DNA tends to be viewed as "absolute proof".

Problem is, it's not.

DNA can be contaminated or prove unreliable, as show in the trial of Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher murder trial. Amanda Knox (and her Italian boyfriend Sollecito) were initially convicted and sentenced to 26 years (25 for the bf) for allegedly murdering her Meredith Kercher in what the prosecution had initially described as a "Satanic ritual orgy" before toning it down to "sex game gone wrong", based on contaminated DNA evidence (among other things).

So yeah, DNA's not the be-all, end-all. And as I recall, it can only be collected when someone's being charged with a "serious crime" in the words of the Supreme Court. What defines a "serious crime", and how much might it be stretched by authorities in the future?

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see"

[Wendigo]

METALFumasu

So yeah, DNA's not the be-all, end-all. And as I recall, it can only be collected when someone's being charged with a "serious crime" in the words of the Supreme Court. What defines a "serious crime", and how much might it be stretched by authorities in the future?

The guy the case is about, Alonzo King, threatened a crowd of people with a shotgun, and admits having done so. The additional crime which the DNA test has implicated him in is a rape from six years before the shotgun thing.