We have seen numerous television crime shows where a DNA sample freed a wrongfully accused suspect; and others where the DNA results turned the suspicion on another family member. So it behooves us to ask …
Can a family member of a suspect legally provide a DNA sample to the authorities which can then be used as probable cause, based on similarities, to seek a court order to obtain the DNA of a suspect who has not been charged with a crime?
And what to make of the wide-spread collection of DNA from citizens – who have been arrested, but not charged or convicted of a crime? Could this lead to bogus arrests of suspects on trumped-up charges in order to obtain the suspect’s DNA? Or be used to compromise other family members? Or prosecute cases for which that statute of limitations has already run its course?
Will your rights to a fair and impartial trial be compromised by DNA found at the scene by a savvy criminal who took fibers and DNA-laced evidence and dropped it about as he prepared to exit the area? Not unheard of since the advent of television crime shows which often serve as a video instruction manual for crooks smart enough to “game the system.”
The Chicago Way: why we should be concerned about big brother/big sister/big transgender …
We should be extremely concerned when anything impairs our freedoms and rights to a fair and impartial trial. One need only consider Senator Roland Burris, the controversial recipient of former Senator Barack Obama’s Senate Seat. Here is a man who knowingly allowed a man to stay on death row for political reasons. His chief investigator and Deputy Attorney General resigned rather than be a party to his corrupt behavior.
“While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.”
“But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.”
“Burris refused. He was running for governor.”
“Deputy attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney agreed, and eventually resigned rather than continue to prosecute Cruz.”
“Kenney was not alone in her beliefs. Prior to Cruz’ 1985 trial, the lead detective in the case resigned in protest over prosecutors' handling of the case, according to news reports at the time.”
So without honest brokers in the Administration and the Judiciary, why should be think that our safety is being protected when we can clearly see that political considerations weigh heavily on decisions made in relation to high profile crimes and cases. Especially when people convicted prior to DNA testing are routinely denied the very DNA tests that would prove them innocent – whether to support a corrupt prosecution or increase the state’s cost; this seems to violate one of the most fundamental of human rights – the right to justice above everything else.
Obama, the product of the “Chicago Way” weighs in …
Wired.com is reporting …
“Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest”
“Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, ‘It’s the right thing to do’ to ‘tighten the grip around folks’ who commit crime.”
“Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.”
Perhaps Obama was grandstanding for the cameras, but we need to take him at his word. This might be a very dangerous precedent in the hands of an unscrupulous government and its corrupt representatives.
It’s technical …
We have all been led to believe that DNA is an infallible indicator of guilt or, at the very least, presence at a crime scene. However, it is not so cut and dried. It often depends on the number of DNA elements that are matched and are required before they can be entered as evidence. It also depends on the quality of the DNA; with highly degraded DNA being next to worthless. It also depends on the honesty of the laboratory and technicians performing the testing. And we have seen indications of fudged test results which were produced to ensnare individuals who the prosecutors thought were guilty.
And it goes far beyond simple identification …
The government is desirous of producing tamper-proof identification which cannot be compromised. It is in the government’s best interest to use DNA for this purpose – and which presents a whole new challenge to your Constitutional liberties and your right to remain private and anonymous. Not only does DNA identify an individual, it may also identify family members, the state of your health and some propensity for violence and addictions. In the hands of a healthcare provider or insurance company, DNA could be used to adjust premium levels or deny coverage. In the healthcare realm, it can potentially identify people for whom additional treatment may be denied based on medical condition predispositions and other factors.
The law regarding the collection and use of DNA is still unsettled in various states …
A recent case argued before the State Supreme Court involved a prisoner who was tested while in custody and found guilty of having committed another crime. The attorney argued that the DNA should have never been collected and the evidence suppressed because the state acted improperly and egregiously in collecting the DNA sample. Should a federal law supersede state law, there would be no such arguments and another one of your constitutional rights may be compromised.
State shenanigans?
Contained in the reference links section below is a court case where the State of California tried to hold open a case beyond the statute of limitations by seeking an arrest warrant for an unknown suspect with a particular DNA. Only when a recent DNA match was made, was the suspect placed at jeopardy. The question of whether or not the suspect's legal rights were violated was at the core of the case.
Bottom line …
We have seen overzealous investigators and prosecutors bend and break the rules with relative impunity. Including manufacturing and submitting false and misleading evidence as well as withholding and suppressing exculpatory evidence from the defense and the Court.
I have often wondered about the relationship between your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the routine collection of DNA would play out in the courts.
Let’s hope that our legislators come down on the side of individual freedoms and do not take that very next step on the slippery slope of turning the United States into another government-dominated police state.
The ONLY hope we have of preserving our Constitution is to elect honest brokers who will pursue the rights of individuals over the rights of the collective, as one finds in socialist and communist countries. We can not stand idly by while our institutions are corrupted by those currently in power as elected officials.
Vote in 2010 and 2o12 for honest representatives of “we the people.”
-- steve
Reference Links:
Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest | Threat Level | Wired.com
BURRIS: BLAGOJEVICH'S SENATE APPOINTMENT IS MORE THAN TAINTED ... HE'S IMMORAL! |OneCitizenSpeaking
Court weighs fairness of 'cold hit' DNA in '76 case
“Several justices of the California Supreme Court suggested Thursday that a defendant's right to a fair trial is not violated when he is charged with a crime that occurred decades earlier based on new DNA evidence.”
“Cara DeVito, Nelson's lawyer, argued that the 26-year delay in prosecution made it impossible for Nelson to put together an adequate defense because witnesses had died, evidence had been lost and memories faded.”
The Court’s verdict …
The DNA arrest warrant in this case was not a true warrant, because it did not authorize the arrest of anyone. It was a shell, a clever artifice designed to satisfy the statute of limitations so the criminal investigation could continue indefinitely until the perpetrator was identified. The filing of the DNA arrest warrant in this case did not commence a criminal prosecution against defendant and, thus, did not satisfy the statute of limitations. <Source|California Supreme Court>
Comments