The town of Truro on Cape Cod is asking for voluntary DNA samples from every man in town. They want help in solving a two year old murder case. The murdered woman had sex shortly before being murdered, and the police have been unable to find out with whom. The DNA swamples are voluntary, but anyone who refuses will be investigated as a murder suspect.
This appears to me to trample on the right to privacy, and the constitutional rights against self incrimination. I wonder if this country would sanction door to door searches of houses in search of evidence. The degree of coercion involved here makes me uneasy. I wonder what others think of this situation. Here is a link to a local story about the situation.

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/dnasweep6.htm

Boy, this is a tough situation...

On one hand, I completely agree with you, but on the other, I view it as a situation where if you're innocent, why worry? However, I wouldn't want my DNA to be databased in a computer for someone to reference whenever they wanted. I view that as an invasion of privacy, and that's not fair.

I think the volunteers helped the police a great deal. If there are no suspects, and half the men get eliminated, imagine what a boon that is for the investigators. There may not be a bigger picture or slippery slope in this story because where else but a small town are you going to get community minded compliance?

That's absolutely outrageous. The ACLU should be all over that. And rightly so. Living in a community and failing to give a voluntary DNA sample to the police is nowhere near enough probable cause to start any sort of investigation of someone. I hope the cops get bitch-slapped so hard no one thinks of trying something like that ever again.

.......then again, maybe I'm completely wrong.

But I didn't see probable cause implied anywhere.

Come to think of it, Hutz is right. It's a gross violation of ones civil liberties and that's fairly apparent.

(I think starting an investigation on someone who didn't comply with a "voluntary" test, kind of implies that the refusal is probable cause, don’t you agree Brooks?)

I mean maybe if they had reason to believe that the perpetrator lived in a much smaller geographical area, like a particular street or something, then maybe. But not a whole damn town. And I didn't see anything in my brief perusal of the article that really said that the cops had proof that the perpetrator was even a resident.

At this point it appears the police are on a fishing expidition. They have no suspects and are trying to develop some sort of lead. They don't know that the killer even lives in the town. They don't even know that the killer is the person who left the DNA sample. The more I have thought about this situation, the more I am opposed to the way the police are proceeding.
The police are attempting coerce people into giving a sample by saying that if they don't they will be investigated. Exercising ones constitutional rights is not evidence that you are a criminal. It is not probable cause for anything. This is a tricky way to get around the constitution, and should not be allowed to continue.

I agree.

Probable cause is a level of proof that says a reasonable person, with similar training and experience, would come to the conclusion that the person is guilty, based on the totality of the circumstances. A refusal isn't probable cause. It just means you're not eliminated as a suspect. You can ARREST based on probable cause. It's a huge level of proof.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Living in a community and failing to give a voluntary DNA sample to the police is nowhere near enough probable cause to start any sort of investigation of someone. I hope the cops get bitch-slapped so hard no one thinks of trying something like that ever again.

I agree completely.

The fact that they'd have the nerve to even TRY something like that is scary.......

.....but then, given the increasing tendency of the gullible American Public to fawningly and unquestioningly believe whatever the ultra-conservative Powers-That-Be tell them or instruct them to do, I would not be at all surprised to see the sheeple in the US going along with something along those lines should it ever be proposed.

Originally posted by Brooks
Probable cause is a level of proof that says a reasonable person, with similar training and experience, would come to the conclusion that the person is guilty, based on the totality of the circumstances. A refusal isn't probable cause. It just means you're not eliminated as a suspect. You can ARREST based on probable cause. It's a huge level of proof.
Okay, I understand the difference, but either way, it still seems like a witch-hunt to me, and part of the reason I feel like there's an increasing trend in turning our country into an overly policed state. No offense, Brooks, but the beat cops in the suburbs of Chicago, S-U-C-K, and their numbers seem to be growing at a disproportionate rate to the populous. They've been getting more and more brazen over the years, and this story is a good reminder of that fact.

If police came in and asked for elimination prints at a crime scene we'd have less of a problem with it, even though it's the same thing. I think DNA just makes it spookier.

Also, if there was something coercive in the article it would bother me more, but I didn't see anything coercive in there.

What are "elimination prints"? Do you mean fingerprints used to eliminate suspects?

Yes. Voluntarily given

Originally posted by Brooks


Also, if there was something coercive in the article it would bother me more, but I didn't see anything coercive in there.

From the article--

""The DNA swamples are voluntary, but anyone who refuses will be investigated as a murder suspect.""

Seems coercive to me.

Totally undemocratic, but very republican.

Get them bad guys any way you can - forget about constitutional rights.

Originally posted by Freethinker
From the article--

""The DNA swamples are voluntary, but anyone who refuses will be investigated as a murder suspect.""

Seems coercive to me.

BUT... before that everyone was a suspect anyway! Obviously, once you've been eliminated you're no longer a suspect. And if you haven't been eliminated........you still are.

And that's just poorly worded in the article. If there are 500 men left in the town, do you really think they're all going to be "investigated"

Originally posted by Echo2


Get them bad guys any way you can - forget about constitutional rights.

How is this unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Brooks
BUT... before that everyone was a suspect anyway!

Possibly, but they were not all being threatened with a focused investigation.

Originally posted by Brooks
Obviously, once you've been eliminated you're no longer a suspect. And if you haven't been eliminated........you still are.

True, but the point here is that it is such a small group of *suspects* that eliminating a significant number of people will mean that the remaining group of putative *suspects* is small enough to allow each and every one of
them to be investigated by the police.

Originally posted by Brooks
And that's just poorly worded in the article. If there are 500 men left in the town, do you really think they're all going to be "investigated"

No....but then my thought was that the number of remaining men would likely be far smaller than that.

Originally posted by Freethinker

No....but then my thought was that the number of remaining men would likely be far smaller than that.

Yes, because of the actions of those other volunteers.

Also, the number we're talking about would have to be under 10 people for each to get a "focused" investigation.

There are some states in which a motorist pulled over is asked if he would volunteer to have his car searched. He then signs a form and the car is searched. Anything that is found stands up in court. The "volunteer" concept carries a lot of weight under the law.

Agree with this DNA testing or not, these people are volunteering.

So Echo, you’re fond of pointing out where conservative tactics are “undemocratic”…

Well here's a little history test for you about getting "bad guys". Don't worry, for it's completely democratic and ineffectual, but who cares? At least it follows protocol so it’s got to be the right way to proceed, ay?

1) In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Lenno
c. Harry Potter
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2) In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

3) In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80 year-old women
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

4) During the 1980's, a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

5) In 1983, the US marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Paul Reubens
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

6) In 1985 the cruise ship "Achille Lauro" was hijacked while a 70 year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. A young Carrot Top
b. Davy Jones
c. Grizzly Adams
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

7) In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked in Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

8)In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

9) In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

10) In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Fred Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, in an effort to divert attention from her husband’s fornication
c. The Catholic Church
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

11) On 9-11-01, four airliners were hijacked; three were used as missiles to take out the Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon, while the forth was crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean and associates
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

12) In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

13) In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Church goers
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

As most of you liberals can agree, I certainly don't see a pattern here that justifies profiling (a common republican crime solving tactic).

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80 year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the president's security detail, 85 year-old congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 alone because it's unfair to profile.

**error*

Originally posted by The Praetorian

As most of you liberals can agree, I certainly don't see a pattern here that justifies profiling (a common republican crime solving tactic).

True, i don't see it either.

Cherry picking 13 crimes ---out of umpteen millions that would have occured during the same time frame--- that happen to have been committed by a certain nationality does not convince me of the need for (the common ReichWing penchant for) profiling.

LOL...

Jesus, you're truly amazing, FT. If you can't see this as a potential problem, then I'm baffled. If you honestly believe that we're solving the quandary effectively, then please tell me how diverting attention from a group of people known to cause specific problems at airports is a logical step?

Cliché’s have existed and stood the test of time for a reason - they can be very accurate in their simplicity. For example, and might I suggest you ponder this at length, if necessary:

If it walks and quacks like a duck, then most likely, it's a duck.

Originally posted by Brooks
How is this unconstitutional?

How is using any means necessary to capture crooks unconstitutional? Seriously?

Originally posted by Brooks
There are some states in which a motorist pulled over is asked if he would volunteer to have his car searched. He then signs a form and the car is searched. Anything that is found stands up in court. The "volunteer" concept carries a lot of weight under the law.

Yeah, but they need to have probably cause to think they're going to find something in your car in order to even ask. The only difference between you volunteering to let them search and not volunteering is the amount of time you spend at the side of the road while they go get a search warrant.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
please tell me how diverting attention from a group of people known to cause specific problems at airports is a logical step?

Wow....suddenly you make a quantum leap from my saying that your list of 13 cherry-picked crimes does not convince me for the need to begin down the slippery slope of profiling people in this country, to charaterizing my position as one where I am advocating ""diverting attention AWAY FROM"" a certain group of people at the airports.

I've heard of intellectual dishonesty, but geeez.....

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Yeah, but they need to have probably cause to think they're going to find something in your car in order to even ask. The only difference between you volunteering to let them search and not volunteering is the amount of time you spend at the side of the road while they go get a search warrant.

A police officer can go up to anyone on the street and ask if they are a murderer. The person doesn't have to answer, but certainly an officer can ask. This is called the Commonlaw Right of Inquiry. You don't need probable cause to ask a question. WITH PROBABLE CAUSE YOU CAN ARREST!!! Without consent a warrant is needed. With consent (as in the DNA case, to get back on topic) everything counts, because the person is allowed to say no.

Also, judges don't issue search warrants simply because a motorist has been pulled over, so I don't understand your scenario

Originally posted by LionelHutz
How is using any means necessary to capture crooks unconstitutional? Seriously?

Did you used to write under your avatar that you were an attorney? If so, was that true?

Originally posted by Brooks
Also, judges don't issue search warrants simply because a motorist has been pulled over, so I don't understand your scenario

I thought we were talking about a situation where the cops think you're hiding something in your car, i.e. something beyond just getting pulled over for speeding. But you're right, they don't need probably cause to ask - not sure what I was thinking when I typed that.

Yes, I'm an attorney.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
How is using any means necessary to capture crooks unconstitutional? Seriously?

Here's one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

April 18, 2000 SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, April 17 -- Law-enforcement agents who walk the aisles of a bus squeezing passengers' carry-on bags to see if any contain contraband are conducting an unconstitutional search, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The 7-to-2 decision, the court's second recent ruling in favor of a defendant in a contested police search, overturned the narcotics conviction of a man who carried drugs in a duffle bag he stowed in the bin above his seat on a Greyhound bus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



There are a myriad of other ways and methods of treating those suspected of criminal wrongdoing that are unConstitutional for the police to use.

It would be unpleasant to live in a country where people thought no citizen had any rights when confronted by the police and where Archie Bunker types made all the rules ............oh wait.......

Didn't mean t be so snotty, Lionel. I shouldn't go on past 11:00 PM

This DNA thing could change tomorrow. Look what "creative" justices have done so far. "Oh, look what I found in the Constitution - right to privacy", or "Oh, I think they meant 'separation of church and state'". I'm not saying those are bad things, but they weren't in there.

Possibly, if this DNA things goes to the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg may say "The founders meant to say a suspect can't be implicated in a crime, by process of elimination, if other third parties voluntarily allowed an intrusive search" and half the country will say "Oh yeah, I see the Emperor's clothes, too". On that day it will be unconstitutional.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Yes, I'm an attorney.
OOP's, you just got bumped two points in the "me liking you" scale. :)

All joking aside, what type law did you study?

Originally posted by Brooks
Didn't mean t be so snotty, Lionel. I shouldn't go on past 11:00 PM

Possibly, if this DNA things goes to the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg may say "The founders meant to say a suspect can't be implicated in a crime, by process of elimination, if other third parties voluntarily allowed an intrusive search" and half the country will say "Oh yeah, I see the Emperor's clothes, too". On that day it will be unconstitutional.

If you were being snotty I didn't notice it. There's no doubt that the Supremes could change in the entire deal at any time based on some strane reading of the Constitution, but at least at the moment, authorities can't use "any means necessary" to apprehend criminals. So no random searches of your house just to check if you're up to something. And based on what FT posted that's not going away any time soon.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
OOP's, you just got bumped two points in the "me liking you" scale. :)

All joking aside, what type law did you study?

You can't be serious. :) I'm a self-loathing lawyer. I studied intellectual property, which is why I'm barely conversant on this criminal law stuff.

Privacy is for the guilty.

Drug dealers don't want cameras on lamp posts. Old ladies coming from the grocery store don't care if there are cameras everywhere

Originally posted by LionelHutz
...I studied intellectual property...
Is that anything like patent law?

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Privacy is for the guilty.

So you're up for having the cops drop by your house unannounced and check around for anything illegal? Pirated software, songs, porno on your computer? Rooting through your underwear drawers to see if there are any joints? Checking to see if you're re-broadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Is that anything like patent law?

Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are all intellectual property, yes.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Privacy is for the guilty.

Drug dealers don't want cameras on lamp posts. Old ladies coming from the grocery store don't care if there are cameras everywhere

Your views and politics are refreshingly scattershot.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
So you're up for having the cops drop by your house unannounced and check around for anything illegal? Pirated software, songs, porno on your computer? Rooting through your underwear drawers to see if there are any joints? Checking to see if you're re-broadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent?

No I do not want to the cops going through my shit BECAUSE I DO HAVE PORN AND BOOTLEG DVDS.

Get it!? I appreciate the fact that they can't stop me for no reason because I have a six pack worth of empty beer cans in my back seat!!!!!

Originally posted by Brooks
Your views and politics are refreshingly scattershot.

Scattershot or not, do you disagree with my statement?

Originally posted by Imagineer
At this point it appears the police are on a fishing expidition.. It is not probable cause for anything. This is a tricky way to get around the constitution, and should not be allowed to continue.
My first thought was this could easily some sort of a ruse just to gather more info for the database.
Yeah I know..Conspiracy theories..
I feel the same way about Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
I just don't feel they can be trusted.
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

read.. You Papers Please..
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index575.htm
:@@:

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Privacy is for the guilty.

Drug dealers don't want cameras on lamp posts. Old ladies coming from the grocery store don't care if there are cameras everywhere

"Scattershot or not, do you disagree with my statement?"


I like it because you normally rail against profiling, but you're actually profiling here. I meant scattershot as a compliment believe it or not. I think we are generally more dogmatic than honest around here. I'm glad to see you break ranks with yourself.