• Dr. Evil

    Do the crime, serve the time.

  • Encycloman

    Best thing about collecting DNA evidence on arrest is the evidence being listed every day in crime statistics – the number of criminals who re-commit, Especially rape, since the ABILITY to commit rape is never removed from a violent rapist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1261917960 Michael Williams

    I am mixed on this one? Yes we need these Evil people off our streets, but then again does that out way the 4th Amendment? No it dose not, so we need to find a better solution to getting these Evil SOB’S off our streets!

    • http://www.facebook.com/stephen.rhinehart2 Stephen Rhinehart

      Do the police have a right to frisk you for wepons before you are convicted.

      • refurb001

        I would say they do. You have usually been read your Miranda (your rights).

  • robocop33

    I have no problem with this at all! It helps solve many otherwise unsolved cases and link people to them. Again, ONLY those who are guilty have reason to worry. No more invasive or wrong tham fingerprinting that also may tie a guilty party to an unsolved crime.

    • TNlawguy

      So if a law is passed that is unconstitutional and you are convicted of it because you were matched with “crime scene” through a DNA swab which was taken without your consent, would you be concerned? Say, at an underground church service location? The location of an unauthorized meeting of subversives? From the handle of a placard the has antigovernment statements? In a house “known” as a safe house for traitors?

      It is very slippery slop.

      • TNlawguy

        Sorry, slope.

      • robocop33

        TMlawguy, no, I did not say anything like that. You still need a warrant to conduct a search or seizure of his body, DNA included. Now I am talking about getting this information and then they, like fingerprints can be used against that person to solve crimes. Just like fingerprints that this person leaves behind or gives voluntarily.

    • Ed Williams

      We don’ need no steenkin’ 5th Amendment, eh? This is a very dicey situation, and “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about” just ain’t so these days. I don’t know the answer, but my DNA is mine, and I’d just as soon keep it that way. My sense is lots more armed Citizens would do more to combat crime, and proactively too, than keeping everything about everyone in Big Brother’s computer. Time will tell…

      • BruceInBaghdad

        Exactly, everyone has the right to not incriminate themselves. Forcible taking of DNA violates that right. Just another opportunity for the government to trample our rights.

  • Nexialist

    The 4th Amendment should be in effect until a presumed innocent person is convicted of a crime. Otherwise, on what basis is the search conducted?

    • http://www.facebook.com/dennis.i.campbell Dennis Campbell II

      The search and subsequent DNA collection was performed as part of an investigation where law enforcement had reasonable suspicion that the individual had committed the crime. 4th amendment was not violated. If you wait until someone is convicted of a crime before you search for evidence, no one will ever be convicted.

  • James Maxwell

    He was arrested for a crime which included a weapon, during booking he was also DNA
    teated. He had not right to expect privicy with his DNA. When, as part of a routing
    run the the available criminal resources he was discovered to be involved in a pending
    unsolved rape case. He in jail and that is the end of the story. If he has not been
    arrested at the time his lawyer might have an argument but in this case when you are
    under arrest you have no reasonable expetation for your DNA not to be taken and
    tested on the National Crime Data Base or the State Data Base.

    • http://www.facebook.com/VGLosers Doug Turner

      This is an excellent point. I really see no difference between the DNA profile and fingerprints.

  • rivahmitch

    It’s a troubling issue. IMHO, DNA samples taken before arrest are a useful tool in identifying a perpetrator. However, again IMHO, in the event that the individual whose sample has been taken is NOT the perpetrator of the specific crime being investigated, the sample and any DNA record made should be destroyed. Of course, that raises the question of whether we can trust the government to respect the rights and privacy of it’s citizens and I suspect we can’t.

    • xdrfox

      They have been taking newborn DNA for many years now from what I have been reading, they will know who without consent or predator in hand soon !

      • 1Davenportguy

        If what you say is true that is the case to take to the supreme court, that truly should be illegal

        • xdrfox

          I posted the results but they took them down, ..do search of words “taking newborn DNA” it will give many source’s of what I refereed !

      • Michelle

        It’s not just newborns… Off and on I’ve seen police stations across the country offering free child id programs to protect your child in case they disappear. They usually involve getting a fingerprint, recent photo, and a dna swab and many parents rush off to take advantage without thinking about the fact that they have, without their childs permission, given the gov’t the ultimate way to identify them for the rest of their lives whether they like it or not.

        • xdrfox

          Also you may remember when Clinton had secretly allow the collection of DNA from newborns to be used in experiment’s for medical research in stem cells that was CLEARLY ILLEGALLY and when was made know it was abruptly stopped, But under the present administration is has been started again as I understand did an Executive order to allow make legal !
          (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
          substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against
          the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers,
          employees, or agents, or any other person.

          Sec. 5. Revocations. (a) The Presidential statement of August 9, 2001,
          limiting Federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells,
          shall have no further effect as a statement of governmental policy.

          (b) Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9,
          2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked.

    • HorseTeethSam

      I think you nailed it – the key issue is “trust”. Can we trust the g o v e r n m e n t? Sure…

      • refurb001

        You pose that question at time when people are getting suspicious of government activities. In the past I would not have had a problem with this. BUT, since Obamy has taken office; too many laws are being skipped or trampled on and people are being taken down or OUT…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Millard-Huff/100001533647046 Millard Huff

      I’M all FOR WHAT YOU SAY.But this guy also rape a woman if it was your mother sister or wife i think you would be singing another tune.I for one do not like anyone taking blood from me but this guy had a shotgun pointed at people and again it could have been someone you loved.There fore the police had the right to take this thugs DNA how does anyone know even the police this guy could have killed someone{and no i’m not a liberal} gotten away with it do you think i would go along with this only on a needed bases but sometimes we have to use common sense and common sense has did more to solve a crime then anything else.Plus look up the U.S.Supreme Court their the one’s that say the police can do this.

      • rivahmitch

        I see nothing in my post which disagrees that the dirt bag in the specific case should fry (and I mean literally. I was attempting to raise the larger issue of whether a DNA library should be built and (by randomly grabbing people off the street (without just cause and keeping their samples) and asserting my conclusion as “NO”. IMHO, law enforcement can “test” as necessary but the samples should remain the property of the individual and be destroyed if the individual is not the perpetrator. (Do we disagree?)

        As to what the Supreme Court allows, if you set your compass by the Supremes, it’s a moving target. That’s why the whole idea of a “living document is spurious. Perhaps there are those who would sign a contract which the other party could reinterpret it’s meaning later but our founders were not so stupid. In fact, both Washington and Jefferson warned of the destruction of the Constitution by “interpretation”. I suspect, as the Kenyan fascist names more of it’s minions to the court, the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights will disappear quickly. Perhaps you’re willing to surrender yours but I’m not. Semper Fi!

  • Freeman Arms, LLC

    How is swabbing a cheek any different than taking finger prints? Just asking.

    • xdrfox

      Swabbing a cheek has become a protocol now if they suspect you of any crime, No charges need be filed !

      • xdrfox

        We also have gun manufactures doing ballistic test on spent slugs before sales as well as casing for finger prints of chamber marks as well hammers so they can pick up shells and slugs for boby’s wall grounds and compare with data bases to track to registered owners and have their man/woman if the gun has not been resold or stollen !

  • flyovercindy

    While I applaud the fact that collecting DNA on arrest has linked criminals to unsolved cases, and hopefully resulted in convictions, we’re looking at the slippery slope again, I fear. Just as parts of the Patriot Act took away some of our freedom, this could open the doors to the government requiring DNA information from anyone they choose – for whatever reason they might want a national DNA database.

    I just worry about arrests made in error, false accusations, etc., once your DNA is in the system, it won’t be removed. The excuse can be made that we have nothing to fear if we haven’t done anything wrong – it’s still another freedom we have lost.

    • http://www.facebook.com/VGLosers Doug Turner

      I’m just curious as to which freedom this is taking away? He’s already arrested for a violent crime, jailed, fingerprinted… I fail to see how DNA collection doesn’t fit that same profile.

      • flyovercindy

        I don’t trust this government – Obama’s or otherwise – to not have a further agenda in building a national DNA database. Fine if this would only be used in criminal investigations, but where is there any guarantee on this? DNA can also screen for genetic diseases or health conditions (if you have a genetic marker for something serious, will you get healthcare or a death panel?), ethnicity (this or any future government can track down people based on their race), and other factors where I’m just not comfortable with the government having control.

        This particular criminal may have been caught in the act, but how many people are falsely accused/arrested and even imprisoned? If you walk by a recent rape scene, and the victim falsely accuses you, will you be fine with giving up your DNA? Maybe you would… are you also OK with a National ID Card? I’m not, and I don’t believe that it is Constitutional for a government to REQUIRE this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Seddon/100001036058948 Robert Seddon

    Lets just start UNIVERSAL DNA databases? Swab em at birth, and then execute them as soon as a match comes up? Pretty similar to the UNIVERSAL gun registration/confiscation database being pushed at present ..

    Suspicion with cause, just like a warrant, should be used to get DNA, but it should be limited to the case that gave cause for the sample.

    • http://www.facebook.com/VGLosers Doug Turner

      And taking their fingerprints when arrested and running it through the database is the same thing, right?

  • TPS12

    The severity of the crime should be the deciding factors; I don’t think we should give any government agency unlimited/unchecked control.

  • Charlie

    Just a thought…. has there not been people jailed and then when the DNA tests came back it proved that said jailed person was jailed wrongly. It can work both ways DNA could hang a person if guilty or free them if falsely accused.
    As for the 4th amendment illegal search ans seizure. Not real sure if it is an illegal act to get DNA or fingerprints. Actually think it is more illegal that some law enforcement groups think that they can become a medical group and draw blood to try to prove if you are driving while intoxicated on something. Actually think that stip searches on someone that has just been accused of a crime is illegal.( case thinking of is the one inTX where 2 women stripped searched on the side of the road , cop actually used same said glove on both women,there is a utube video) .
    As first stated just a thought….

  • http://www.facebook.com/dlarochellemd Dave La Rochelle

    DNA swabs should be in the same category as finger prints for biometric identifications.

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com/ Silas Longshot

    When the cops book you for whatever, they run your prints, which has been done for what, 100 years? That has been standard ‘biometric testing’ this entire time. Swabbing DNA while in custody by the cops is the same as running prints. Now, if they want to record EVERYBODY’S DNA, now that’s a whole ‘nother pile of BS that we should NOT ever put up with.

  • herdzcatz

    To some of us, it appears as if the “powers” will seek to release the guilty on technicalities, but to use as many means as possible to incriminate the innocent.

  • reggiec

    I think the question is; if law enforcement has a record of your DNA, how could that be used against you illegally? Unless they have actual samples of fluids, hair or some other substance containing your DNA to place at a crime scene to frame you, a DNA profile is just like a finger print on file. On the other hand how could it benefit an innocent person? In recent years law enforcement has eleminated possible suspects through DNA comaprison. Falsely accused and convicted persons have been exonerated through the use of DNA profiles that were taken from people arrested for violent crimes.
    Persons arrested for violent crimes have been fingerprinted ever since fingerprints were determined to be valuable in identifying criminals. DNA is just a more technical means of identification.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jim.d.keever Jim D Keever

      I agree with you, however I still have trust issues with the Govt. Easy to plant DNA evidence after the fact. We need to make changes in the Govt. THEN we could start trusting the results. I see at least 3 possibilities, convict the guilty, free the innocent, or convict the innocent. Most people in Law Enforcement are honest and hard working, but I do not trust their bosses!!

      • reggiec

        If someone is afraid of being framed with planted DNA it would take a constant effort to prevent your DNA from ever being collected. No throwing away of paper cups, straws, cigarette butts, worn out clothing unless it was steralized, hair clipping at the barber, etc.
        I have heard that Obama has a DNA cleanup detail that collects and disposes anything that might contain his DNA. Maybe he is afraid that someone might compare it to descendants of Frank Marshal Davis.

    • Ed Williams

      What if your DNA falls or is spilled out of Van Adder’s trunk while he’s at the next crime scene? Just sayin’…


    Of course, that raises the question of whether we can trust the government to respect the rights and privacy of it’s citizens and I suspect we can’t.

    That’s right they can’t be trusted and they are all LIARS

  • Buford

    Collect it, then place it where you want it to be found. Convenient police practice. We know police would never ever stoop to get a conviction . DNA only ‘proves’ source, not how it ended up in a location. This will force the defendent to prove how it got there, i.e., prove their innocence. At the very least a circumstantial case can be arranged with no problem at all, and we know convictions are often made on a preponderance (subjective) of circumstantial evidence versus hard evidence.

    • Buford

      Also, you pretty much have to handle something to get your fingerprints on something. Planting fingerprints isn’t something the average joe is familiar with. Transferring DNA is nothing. Heck, sneeze in one room of the house and your DNA ends up at the far end. Television has made DNA convictions sound like a slam-dunk, and I reckon they are as long as juries rely on what the government presents without any attempt to doubt and expose flawed logic.

  • jerrycollie

    My problem with DNA is I don’t think it is all that accurate. I saw a print-out of a DNA from accused and a DNA from the crime scene. Although there were similarities they were not identical; but the accused was convicted. Now say they have your DNA on file and it looks a lot like a DNA from a crime scene 3,000 miles away. You know they are going to take you down, innocent or not. Then too, it is easy for a criminal to plant someone else’s DNA at the scene. There is a lake in my area where condoms drift ashore from boats in the night. It would be easy for a rapist to drop one at his crime scene.

  • slickzip

    Swab them and book them THAT WORKS FOR ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Just sayin

      Why inject racist crap into a reasonable discussion unless you have nothing intelligent to add? In that case, who is the dummy?

  • marineh2ominer

    There is absolutely NOTHING that we can trust the government on , lets face it , we cannot even trust them to follow the very simple document we live by , the United States constitution . It isn’t in any confusing language other than what they invent and they still can’t be trusted with it . Ask the American Indians , or the Japanese Americans , or the black community ( from the past ) how much we can trust the government . It is even WORSE now that it is being led by a communist muslim where truth is just a real pain in the a– .

  • Ballistic45

    Any power given to Government will be abused.. To think otherwise is a big mistake..

  • Lobo VNVMC

    If DNA collection is a invasion of privacy, then what about finger prints? Finger
    prints are kept in multiple data bases; what’s the difference.

  • Glad DNA was used

    My sister’s rapist was found after almost 20 years (just before the statute of limitations ran out!) thanks to DNA taken at booking several states away. The scumbag was also linked to many other rapes over the years due to the DNA the cops took.

    How about this: If DNA is sacred, what about our fingerprints?

  • goku vegeta


  • http://www.facebook.com/kid721952 Paul Erwin

    If you have broken the law in ANY WAY,SHAPE OR FORM,I believe the law should be able to take DNA samples,people have been released from prison,wrongfully jailed,because of a DNA test,that man was arrested and they found out he had raped someone years earlier,GOOD JOB,the mans privacy does not include rape of an innocent woman

  • GQ4U

    DNA can be requested but should never be forced from an individual without a court ordered search warrant. Taking DNA outside these parameters violates your 4th and 5th amendment rights by illegal search and seizure plus forcing you to effectively testify against yourself. The police state needs to be pushed back and hopefully the SCOTUS will do so with this decision.

    Better a few bad guys get away if the alternative is to destroy the US constitution.

Trending Now on GJWHG