I don’t really see a difference between the former and the latter. Or maybe it’s because I find it inconceivable that anyone would think I had anything to do with a crime.
Sounds like they need all the help they can get.
I would refuse. The OP’s hypothetical did not rule out a false positive test result. As mentioned earlier, there is a chance of being wrongly accused. Even if that chance is one in a million, if I were wrongly convicted, I would have nobody to blame but myself. So, even a one in a million risk against my freedom and clean reputation is too high a risk to me, even to help a neighbor.
Is that true? I’ve been to Spain and I don’t remember being fingerprinted, and I’ve been through US customs dozens of times and I don’t remember having my fingerprints taken there either. Is this happening without my knowlege? I could see saving those customs declaration cards for fingerprints after the fact, but it seems like word of that would get out.
Some would argue that there is a higher civic duty in safeguarding various Constitutional Amendments and principles by not voluntarily ceding them in such a tenuous situation.
Others would argue that overall, society would be better off if every home, office, or other private space had networked Web cams strategically placed that recorded all activity, cameras that would send their data to secure locations, would be available only on court order or a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and would only be viewable by anonymous third parties.
Let’s say there’s 100 people in the neighbourhood. 93 of them submit to testing and rule themselves out. Is it then ok and allowed to focus all resources on the other 7?
Is it possible in such a scenario to set “terms and conditions” when you voluntarily submit to testing, and have those terms recorded? For example - I give you my sample for THIS CASE ONLY. The cops agree. But then match it to another unsolved case from 5 years ago - can they use the evidence?
Thirdly - on CSI (yeah, great cite I know) the cops are continuously collecting all sorts of samples from “discarded” items or from fallen hairs and the like. Just how realistic and legal is this?
I’d do it, on the condition that the DNA profile be used for exclusion in that particular case and not kept on file.
But aren’t you already running a risk of being wrongfully convicted once the police show up on your doorstep? I mean, at that point, you already are under investigation, and conceivably things could go wrong in such a way as to incriminate you. Submitting to DNA testing then only lowers the chances of a false positive, by a considerable margin, and thus would be to your benefit.
Me, I’d do it, provided I’d get something written that says that my DNA won’t be kept on file. Actually, I’m a bit astonished at the amount of unconditionally negative answers, and at their vehemence; there seems to be a lot more distrust in the justice system than I would have thought. Not that that’s a bad thing necessarily, it’s always a good idea to keep a close watch on the hands of the people in power to make it harder for them to abuse that power, but still, if I had that little trust in the structures designed to uphold and enforce the law and thus keep the society I’m a part of in working order, I’d probably seriously think about leaving the country.
I’d recommend the superb video (of which there is a longer version with police input) linked above; even the slightest, most innocuous thing can come back to haunt you in ways that you can’t imagine. Nothing good can ever come of talking to the police if you are a potential suspect (which, if they’re asking for your DNA, you are); nor should you have any obligation to prove yourself innocent (the whole basis of the legal system being that you already are, until proven guilty). If it goes to trial the fact that you didn’t say anything has no standing at all, even pointing it out as some sort of indication of guilt is grounds for a mistrial (legal eagles might correct me on this, IANAL, etc).
As to the OP; no, never. Get a warrant.
No.
First, it makes a mockery of a constitutionally protected right if actually taking advantage of that right was seen as sufficient evidence to go ahead anyway. It would be like the police asking someone to hand over their firearms, and taking their refusal as evidence that they have done something wrong that justifies taking their firearms by force.
Second, doing so ignores the possibility that someone who doesn’t live in the neighbourhood is responsible.
Nava is a Spanish citizen. So Spain has her fingerprints because she’s one of theirs, and the US customs has her fingerprints because she’s NOT one of theirs.
Assuming that you are a U.S. citizen, the rules for when your fingerprints are different, and I’m not claiming to know what they are. (I’m assuming the rules for Nava’s based purely on her post, so they may not be accurate either).
If you’ve ever handled a penny, the government already has your DNA.
Why do you think they keep them in circulation?
I would certainly suspect something if of a parent with a half of a kid. Where’d the other half go?
Stupid anti-sodomy laws. :mad:
Doesn’t the government fingerprint everyone who goes into the U.S. military? I got fingerprinted when I went in.
I cannot urge you strongly enough to watch the video I linked to in my earlier post.
Anyone remember some publicized cases where people who refused to participate in a dragnet were subjected to harassment?
The reason I wouldn’t do it has nothing to do with not trusting the police. Nor do I think it’s very likely I could be convicted of a crime based on a mistake handling my sample.
For me, it’s just a matter of principle. I don’t think police should be using this technique. Unrelated parties shouldn’t even be asked for proof of their innocence, and they certainly shouldn’t treated as suspects based on their refusal to provide it.
As long as people are willing to submit to these dragnet DNA tests, police departments will consider them a valid investigation technique. Therefor, I won’t submit to them, and just hope that I’m not in the minority.
Though the technology and collection methods for DNA evidence have improved, this article provides an example of what can go wrong. A British man, who had Parkinson’s and couldn’t drive, became a suspect in a burglary that occurred 200 miles away from him because DNA evidence at the scene of the crime was a “match” with his sample that was in the national database.
My layman’s understanding of DNA evidence is that there are points along the DNA molecule (the core loci) that are highly variable between people, so these points get compared with a sample to determine a match. They use the core loci because trying to match up the millions of points of information between two DNA samples would be ridiculous, but the core loci are variable enough that you can get statistically useful results examining only a handful of points. The more points you use, the more confidence you can have in declaring a match. The FBI uses 13 core loci for CODIS, while the UK’s national database uses 10 core loci and a gender marker.
In 1999 the UK was only collecting 6 core loci for their database, and this led to the “match” from the article. To be clear, the 6 loci they had collected from the man matched the 6 loci tested from the crime scene sample. However, once the man’s lawyer managed to get everything retested using 10 loci, the additional 4 loci excluded the man as a suspect. Unfortunately, he had already spent months in jail before being released.
13 core loci is probably enough to make the potential for a false match like this very miniscule, but it does exist (which is why they can never declare a match in court, you have to give the statistical odds that it could be anyone but the defendant). The more samples in the database, the greater the risk of an innocent 13 loci match occurring. If I lived in the UK, I’d be very wary of volunteering a sample, since it appears they can keep it in their national database and they only analyze 10 loci.
How are the cops supposed to be able to determine who is an “unrelated party” and who is not?
How did they do it before DNA testing?