Posted on 06/24/2015 8:00:58 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie will soon have his deputies obtaining DNA from people arrested and charged for certain violent crimes. This DNA collection will take place before they are convicted – a departure from current Minnesota law. In 2006, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled the practice of gathering DNA, without a warrant, from people charged but not convicted, was illegal. Two years ago, in 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled the practice was okay – at least in Maryland. In light of that ruling, Dakota County is betting that if their new procedure is challenged in court, they'll have the law on their side. “Being elected sheriff, and out in the community talking to people about their concerns, and they think we're already doing this,” said Sheriff Leslie. “I'm sure we can have the ACLU and defense bar coming forward and say, challenge this, we fully anticipate that.” When reached for comment, the ACLU told Fox 9 they believe the collection of DNA prior to conviction — without a warrant — is unconstitutional, not only under the US Constitution, but also under Minnesota's. “The U.S. Constitution is really the floor, and states are free to provide greater constitutional protections in their state constitutions,” said Teresa Nelson, who is the MN ACLU legal director. State courts have often interpreted Minnesota's constitutional protections more broadly than the federal protections. For example, while DWI checkpoints are allowed under the U.S. Constitution, they are banned under Minnesota's.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxtwincities.com ...
A cop asks me for blood, I tell him no. They try to restrain me. I will fight.
The State will get your DNA by hook or by crook.
http://www.cchfreedom.org/issue.php/14#.VYtwzHLH8ic
we have plenty of crooks to make sure.
As a resident of Dakota County, this doesn’t bother me in the least.
I’m not a risk for being DNA tested. I don’t fit the profile.
What about you, TZ?
;-)
Charged with a crime doesn’t mean they were guilty, a rogue government can charge anyone
“...from people charged but not convicted”
yeah. I have a problem with that.
And I see mission creep.
At first, this will apply to only ‘serious’ crimes.
Bet that you lived in the far south of the county. I lived in Eagan for 10 years, and found that amazing stuff can be considered a violent offense (as in any slight against Dear Leader). But then Eagan PD had a major chip on the shoulder.
I no longer live in Minnesota. Four years ago I moved back to Texas.
“As a resident of Dakota County, this doesn’t bother me in the least.
I’m not a risk for being DNA tested. I don’t fit the profile.”
So it doesn’t matter that it’s illegal, because you don’t fit the profile.” How nice for you! Eventually, they will come for yours too, because in a totalitarian society, like we’re headed for (with folks like you looking the other way while the abuses are established) you are already on their “to do” list. But don’t worry you can move a couple of times and dodge what’s coming for a little while longer, so why worry, right?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
You’ve had enough to think, citizen.
bump
Feel free to actually read the article.
search for “no refusals”
they’ve gotten every sample so far.
sick f’n bastards...
Don't commit a crime in Alaska. Statute allows DNA to be collected by force, if necessary. I can only recall one inmate refusing during my career, so I isolated him, had plenty of staff on hand, a prepared script and a video camera. Once he realized we were serious, he became compliant.
My wife was wrongly charged with a misdemeanor crime 10 years ago. She was found not guilty in a trial and the prosecutor was threatened with disbarrment right there in the courtroom by the judge.
When you google her name her mug shot comes up right before the link that states her masters in nursing. She can’t stop them from posting it even though she committed no crime because it’s considered public record.
This is as wrong as that.
I guess I’m in the minority, I wouldn’t care if they took my DNA “Profile” if I was ever arrested. They obtain a “profile” of the DNA which is NOT like they are capturing all your DNA-—it’s of no real use other than identification. Just as I see no problem with the “booking” process obtaining the arrested person’s fingerprints, so I see no problem with the process obtaining a DNA profile (but nothing further than the profile).
Both are collection of unique personal data to be used for identification purposes if required in the future.
If all cops were outstanding citizens, and not some of them power hungry bullies then I “might” be okay with it. Still probably not.
How do I know the DNA collected won’t conveniently be swapped with the evidence gathered at whatever crime scene.
The Founders never imagined that the government would have the right to take anything they want from private citizens at anytime.
You assume that if I were to be ordered to give DNA I would be guilty of the crime? “Don’t commit a crime in Alaska.”
So you’re implying that if you don’t commit a crime, you won’t have your blood forcefully drawn. Okie dokie. Got it. Because no one innocent has ever been falsely accused, and thrown in jail for most of their lives by tampered DNA evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.