CLPEX Chat Board

I can't believe it (well, actually I can considering this came from California!!!). A state law, including an amendment approved by the voters of California, requires a DNA sample to be taken from someone arrested for a felony offense. Not uncommon as I believe there are several states that have a similar law. An appelate court in California just ruled that "the seizure of [his] DNA at a time when he was entitled to the presumption of innocence, and there had been no judicial determination of probable cause to believe he committed the offense for which he was arrested, violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We agree, and therefore reverse the judgment." So, what they are saying is that the law is not correct and they are going to make it illegal to collect one's DNA at the time of a felong arrest. Is his going to be a precedent for future DNA collections?

Are you kidding me? The next thing to go will be fingerprints...

Here is a link to the article http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.p ... Itemid=160

I don't necessarily agree with the decision to overturn the law requiring collection of DNA upon arrest, however, if you read the decision, the argument being made is primarily that you should get a warrant if you want a buccal swab because the Court views it as more intrusive than collecting fingerprints and less useful for identifying the arrestee because of the time needed to process the sample. Unfortunately the Court is viewing the collection of a buccal swab not much differently than the collection of blood from a person arrested for DUI who doesn't want to voluntarily submit to a blood draw. But hey it's typical 9th Circuit silliness, burn a cop car because you hate the man and the corrupt government constructs and then rely on those same corrupt government constructs to protect your rights .

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do ... 125542.PDF

Thanks for posting the link to the decision...