maryland vs king

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

fingerprints are for i.d., not to search for other crimes to charge an arrestee with.
king, otoh, had his dna entered not into the id'd dna, but the unsolved crime dna pool. thus, how could it be used to identify him, by matching him to unknown providers????
the majority ruled that dna was used for 'identity' purposes, scalia's dissent rips that argument to shreds. what did you think of scalia's dissent, dell?

The FBI's IAFIS not only identifies the prints submitted but can be used as a data base to match unknown prints taken from a crime to prints on file and come up with an identification. My prints are in IAFIS, not because of any crime but because of my job. So are everyone's from stockbrokers to video poker licensees.

Unlike Scalia I think the DNA was most certainly used for identity purposes, just as finger prints are.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The FBI's IAFIS not only identifies the prints submitted but can be used as a data base to match unknown prints taken from a crime to prints on file and come up with an identification. My prints are in IAFIS, not because of any crime but because of my job. So are everyone's from stockbrokers to video poker licensees.

Unlike Scalia I think the DNA was most certainly used for identity purposes, just as finger prints are.

then explain why, like he asked, they ran the dna thru the unsolved crime dna database, not the known criminal dna database? he was checked specifically to look for crimes he wasn't arrested for, charged with, etc. it is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. it's a stretch, just like obamacare 'fines' are a tax.

and my fingerprints are in there as well, for past employment.

prints for those not charged, or found innocent, are supposed to be expunged from the fingerprint database. i am not sure when they match prints-if it's at arrest, or after conviction. it's never been run thru the scotus either.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

then explain why, like he asked, they ran the dna thru the unsolved crime dna database, not the known criminal dna database? he was checked specifically to look for crimes he wasn't arrested for, charged with, etc. it is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. it's a stretch, just like obamacare 'fines' are a tax.

and my fingerprints are in there as well, for past employment.

prints for those not charged, or found innocent, are supposed to be expunged from the fingerprint database. i am not sure when they match prints-if it's at arrest, or after conviction. it's never been run thru the scotus either.

I suspect like IAFIS when they run a DNA profile thru the system it's cross checked against everything.

Would it have been OK to take his DNA sample, put it in the data base and then re-run the DNA taken from the rape against those on file? Chicken and egg sort of argument. When I consider all the crimes, just in Chicago, where DNA evidence was obtained being able to be matched against future arrestees I have great hope a lot of criminals involved in a lot of crimes will no longer be looking for prey. At least not outside of prison. Now if Illinois could put convicted murderers/rapists away for anywhere near what their sentences dictate we could see progress.

[Danzig]

i suspect you need to read scalia's dissent.

[Danzig]

another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.

why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.

why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.

As you know, I disagree with the DNA ruling, but I imagine it falls under what the SC considers "invasive." I guess they feel a cheek swab is not invasive, while a blood draw is.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As you know, I disagree with the DNA ruling, but I imagine it falls under what the SC considers "invasive." I guess they feel a cheek swab is not invasive, while a blood draw is.

i don't know that it was brought up. the majority only looked at dna collection as another tool to identify, but that's not what it was used for as scalia pointed out.
so, if it's really to obtain evidence, then it should fall under the same evidence aquirement rule as blood draw imo. whether a swab in the mouth, or a needle in the vein, it's invasive, isn't it?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.

why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.

Do you need a warrant to finger-print?