You left out “mistake due to inappropriate testing protocols” and “deliberate misrepresentation.”
I would refuse, and openly mock and criticize the idea and those who were proposing it, leading to anger, harassment, false arrest, trumped up evidence, a kangaroo court, and an unjustified incarceration.
I would have freely given the police the information (DNA) asked for until I saw that video that was posted near the beginning of the thread (which was a while ago and so I’ve had good time to digest it). Assuming your jurisdiction follows the normal liberal democracy due process protocols, there is never a good reason to give information to the police. They cannot use your silence against you, so if you didn’t do anything you have nothing to gain by attempting to exonerate yourself.
That doesn’t mean if the police show up without a warrant you should just close the door, but anything you say about yourself, you behavior or your feelings about or even awareness of anyone or anything is potentially prejudicial, as shown in that video. Unless you have undeniable documented proof of what you’re telling them, the fact that it might be shown false may some back to get it.
One might say that in dragnet situations where the police have no particular suspicions that it might be ok, especially if you have heard through others (TV, radio) that this program was on and thus aren’t surprised when an officer shows up, but you gain absolutely nothing by giving them that information; it hardly helps them catch anyone if the only possible information you’re giving them is something you know won’t actually help.
I would if I was innocent. I can understand people wanting to protect their rights and such, but as long as it was no cost to me, why not?
Judges and cops have better things to do than force me to do something. And in the end since they’d get a warrant and force me to do it anyway, why bother.
Now that is strictly my opinion and I can certainly understand how other people would feel and do something else.
This is the route I would take.
I’d never volunteer my DNA.
I would. I’ve never committed a crime, and I don’t plan to, so why should it bother me that they have my DNA on record?
Never exceed the speed limit? Or maybe a cousin of yours did commit a crime, and his DNA is similar on the testing points. Or maybe they just mix up the samples down at the lab.
No! I should not have to preemptively prove I’m innocent. Let 'em get a warrant if they think I did it.
In the scenario we’re talking about here, no, they would not get a warrant and force you to do it, because they’d have no legal basis for that.
Addressing the O.P. ,no I wouldn’t .
But then again I am a serial killer and frequently have sex with farmyard livestock.
Only the goodlooking ones mind,I’m not a weirdo.
Suspicion is suspicion. Being black isn’t a crime, but if there are 2 black people in a room full of white people and the police barge in looking for a black criminal, then those 2 guys are going to be scrutinized.
Please don’t bring up racial profiling as that is a completely separate issue. The fact is, if we take the OP’s scenario as a given, and the culprit is likely a person in the neighborhood, AND DNA rules out 93 out of 100 people, the it is simply logical and rational that the remaining 7 be looked at through a closer lens.
I’ve had bad experiences with the police before, and that video notwithstanding, I still consider them overall to be good, honest, and trustworthy. If they cannot find the person through the usual means, I’m not going to stand in the way of them trying to find it through more unusual means. I’d give them my sample and wish them luck
I’m also surprised by the level of vehemence on this issue. False positives can be double checked, and a million to one odds are not good odds to repeat. Police harassment does happen, but they are in the severe minority. I would fear more from the police not catching this guy than from them somehow ID’ing me wrongly for something I didn’t do.
For the people afraid that their DNA will somehow give the police a false positive: would you leave a person to die in a lake or a burning car and not call for help, assuming you were the only one around? Letting them die has no tangible negative affect on you, apart from some guilt. Trying to save them might mean your death or harm, and calling someone and they still die might run you afoul of some local good samaritan law.
And I disagree with people who say they gain nothing by volunteering. For some spurious million to one odds of you being a false positive, you gain the knowledge that you helped police narrow down what may be a list of hundreds to a list of a few dozen (if more people cooperate). To put it another way, if the police were so corrupt and/or incompetent that they’d spend time and money to harass you for not providing a sample, you’ve just saved the money and man-hours they would have devoted to you that may be devoted to the real criminal. You gain the time and money you would have spent worrying about it, defending yourself from such harassment, and all you lose is a DNA sample that, out of millions of people, might in some way harm you. Lets be totally honest, people who spend any time in jail over this are outliers; it is silly to base an answer on that just as it is silly to worry about meteors killing you while you’re driving
No cop would get a sample from you for a speeding ticket. As for a mixup, mistakes like that are easily corrected. Just provide another sample and tell them to be more careful. You also have the option of hiring your own lab tests.
But you see, even if the police suspect it’s likely it’s someone from the neighborhood, it might not be. Submitting your DNA is not helpful at all in this case- unless you did it, of course. If the DNA was to be helpful, then they’d be able to get a Court Order. Since there is no Court Order, it’s useless. ipso facto
Well, yes, the Police will not take DNA for a investigation into a minor crime. But once it’s on file- who knows? Now they are giving out speeding tickets based upon photos and radar. Maybe next decade it’ll be based upon DNA traces.
But the point it- you have committed crimes- we all have. If the police gain your DNA for this useless exercise, there’s nothing to stop them from using it elsewhere and elsewhen.
It might not be, but then again it might. And to determine that, the police are asking people to submit their DNA voluntarily, giving them extra men and resources to devote to other, more difficult investigations. I guess I look at it from not only a rights standpoint, but also one of convenience. Sure, the police can ask a judge to get a warrant, sure they can go inch by inch over the property, but with a voluntary DNA submission, they can save all that time and effort. I want to make it easier for the police to do their job, not harder.
And to be fair, I think you will have to admit that just because something doesnt have a warrant or court order does not make that line of investigation useless. It merely means there are extra layers of protection granted so that abuse is less possible. The police cant storm into your house and take your DNA by force, but nothing prevents you from giving it up voluntarily.
Its easier to imagine a court order, in this case, slowing down the investigation than helping it. Now thats not to say I want no checks and balances, merely stating the reality. So I dont believe you can say that without a court order, this line of inquiry is useless. It may be less likely to yield a match, but it can still yield one
But you still did the crime. Why are you protesting this? Are speeders only allowed to be caught red-handed through photos, radar, and a policeman’s eye? It seems that people who argue this want to puposefully limit the ability of the police to do their job to antiquated technology that they can evade.
But you still committed the crime! Dont you think that you shouldnt get away with it?
If you want convenience, just arrest everyone, or execute them all. It would save a lot of time and effort.
The premise of this DNA dragnet is that people are guilty until proven innocent. You admit it yourself by stating that when the 93 people submit to the innocuous requests, the other seven immidiately become suspects. When they didn’t do anything wrong. Essentially, you are in favor of accusing innocent men of crimes, and thus subjecting them to unfavorable scrutiny by the law.
That alone is reason enough to resist a dragnet. When the assumption is guilt rather than innocence, you will be treated like a crook by the police, who are well-able to make themselves a hassle whether you’re guilty or not. This is something we should avoid doing to people who we have no reason to think deserve it.
Signing up for this dragnet is throwing innocent people to the wolves.
I plead the fifth. (Looks like the constitution doesn’t think I should be doing the police’s job for them…)
Fuck the police. In fact, if they want my DNA, they can send a pretty deputy over to collect it.
Tell her to bring her cuffs. 
How about this hypothetical scenario: UHC (which, btw, I am not against) becomes the norm in this country after several false starts and a single payer program is instituted (it is actually popular, with >65% of the populace supporting it). Because the government finds itself going broke (the republicans won back the presidency and a slight majority in the house in 2016 and instituted a bunch of tax cuts for the rich), they decide to ration care. You, my friend, have just come down with a rare disorder that requires a testicle transplant to save your life. Unfortunately, the government health rationing board has examined your freely given DNA and determined that you are 97% more likely than the average testicle transplant recipient to die of chronic liver failure in the next 5 years due to a genetic penchant for alcoholism. The rationing board decides to ship you off to a hospice instead as they have written you off as a bad bet.
Bet it would bother you then that your DNA was on record!
A DNA “mix up” that links the suspect to the crime pretty much guarantees an indictment. Maybe the defendant can both find and afford one or more experts to testify on his side, but the jury is going to decide who wins the swearing contest.
Never create evidence for the prosecution. Don’t talk to cops. Or don’t blame the lawyer when you go to prison.
Well, you see, if I did not commit the crime then the police are wasting valuable time and resources gathering and checking out my DNA. Those CSIs and Lab Techs are often backed up and don’t work for free. So, if I don’t give them my DNA (assuming I did not commit the crime) I am saving them resources. Since I did not commit the crime, merely lived in the area, there’s also no reason to investigate me, so why should they?
Yes, I feel certain minor crimes are too often enforced for reasons of revenue enhancement, not the public safety. You can drive a few miles over the speed limit and usually be perfectly safe.
Story about a “serial killer” that was actually just contaminated DNA swabs. 40 crimes were linked. A $400k reward was offered.
And of course this is just an example of a widespread enough fuckup that we find out about it. I wonder how many people might be sitting in jail because the swab that collected the crimescene evidence and the swab that collected their DNA evidence were contaminated by the same source…