2:16 pm ET
Feb 23, 2012

Constitutional Law

Can State Take DNA Prior to Conviction? 9th Cir. Says Yes

    • Is it my imagination, or is the power of the government growing? Seems like there's no limit to its intrusion into the lives of the citizenry.

    • no not your imagination the government has been growing for a long time.
      Presumption of innocence has become a sad joke

    • Doesn't DNA testing raise the issue of a person's right against self-incrimination?

    • How is taking DNA any different from taking fingerprints?

    • @mikeD

      Nope. It's non-testimonial evidence. Another example would be fingerprints.

    • IF the DNA was used fairly YES. But if even when there is proof that an innocent person is in prison or death row based on newfound idenity of the DNA it is almost impossible or 5 to 10 years to get them out. Just look at NORFOLK FOUR, and in their case, their dishonorable discharge should be reversed and they should be back in the military with their prioson time as credit for time in service.

    • @ 5:07 - Good point.

      @ 5:10 - I guess that's why polygraphs are not admissible... ?

    • What a joke the majority opinion is. A 10th grader could poke holes in it.

      First: "making DNA collection substantially similar to fingerprinting, which law enforcement officials have used for decades to identify arrestees, without serious constitutional objection."

      Like, duh! Then why the need for DNA testing??

      Second: "Moreover, state and federal statutes impose significant criminal and civil penalties on persons who misuse DNA information"

      So law enforcement is expected to vigilantly prosecute law enforcement?? Hey, I believe in the Tooth Fairy too, but I don't expect other people to believe it.

      Third: "On the other side of the balance, DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement officials to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects"

      Yeah, so is breaking and entering into someone's home.

      Go back to school -- and I don't mean law school. More like elementary school.

    • @Anonymous

      "Like, duh! Then why the need for DNA testing??"

      Say blood, saliva, or hair is found a crime scene, but no fingerprints are found. Do you still fail to see the benefit of a DNA databank in addition to a fingerprint databank?

      "Yeah, so is breaking and entering into someone’s home."

      Do you honestly not realize how completely inapposite this comparison is?

    • You cannot really support this opinion without also supporting mandatory DNA submission and database of EVERY American, afterall, they are presumed innocent as well.

    • This case creates constitutional issues, because of the intrusion of privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. The fact that many people have been exonerated from crimes based on DNA testing was an attempt from the convicted person to find relief from judicial system that had missed the mark in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and had it not been for this provision the convicted person would have not gotten it through the courts any other way. The difference here is in the facts of these cases, where either DNA testing was not available , or they were not aware of all the DNA evidence that could have exonerated these people , which was made available on appeal, also DNA testing was related to their respective charge or conviction. On the case at hand it doesn't matter if there is any relation to it,; the sample is collected without probable cause other than an arrest. If a person is stopped for say running a red light, there is probable cause for search seizure in most cases by observation, and inspection alone, but not when it is not in relation to the infraction. If the arrest is unrelated to an act where DNA is Required to identify and charge a person then only finger printing should be the procedure. Justice is fair; judges are fair, but the system standing before judges not always, for many years innocent people have been convicted, spending years in prison without anyone doing anything, until the person in prison were able to prove they were innocent by DNA. We cannot afford to be reckless with the lives of citizens, no it is not a negligible act to the overall outcome; that's the same mentality that put all those innocent people behind bars to begin with. The law of the land has made it unconstitutional, and history has proved it to be. God is the judge of all the world, and the constitution is based on the believe that God is just, and right.

Add a Comment


About Law Blog



    • Law Blog on Twitter

Must Reads

Law Bureau

Top Law Stories