Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest

[MeanJean]

I am with Bruce Monkhouse on this one.

If you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to worry about.  It is another form of identification and it is about time that the laws catch up with technology.  What is the moral/ethical difference between taking fingerprints or taking DNA? 

Some crimes are more prone to leaving DNA behind and if one of those crimes happened to my daughter and the bastard who commited it was not convicted but could have been if a DNA sample was taken. What if the assailant was unknown but his DNA was on file?  I would like to see justice served.  It is another tool to allow the police to do their job.

 

[Container]

Like I said- Im on the fence. I do fail to see how a buccal swab is a gigantic thing when a guy is sitting in cells for kidnapping or murder.

Could one of you actually articulate the rights intrusion? I dont think the need is articulated well but I also dont understand the strong reaction.

We use fingerprints against people before they are convicted- and their is a procedure in place for dealing with them if the arent convicted. I m missing something?

ALSO- currently it takes a judge rather than a justice of the peace to sign a DNA warrant. Its a huge headache- so I would suggest that given the courts feelings on the gravitas of DNA I dont see this happening.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I would be okay with having my DNA taken since I haven't committed any crimes, don't plan to and if I do commit one then I'll deserve to be caught.
If it helps put away violent criminals (who seem to constantly find loop holes in the law) then for me it's a solid argument.

nothing to hide= nothing to fear

I used to think this way 100% but after dealing with the police who tried this against me then treated me like a criminal after exercising my rights (on the advice of multiple police officers) I'm not so supportive of the idea. 
"Cops don't talk to cops, the first thing we do if accused of anything is get a lawyer" is what my friend told me.

Having nothing to hide doesn't mean your life can't be turned upside down and cost you thousands of dollars for a lawyer if you're not smart. 

Didn't the Ottawa police just have to apologize to some guys who they falsely accused of defacing the Arrow in Ottawa?  Resulting in months and months of online character assassination and harassment. They turned themselves in because they had nothing to hide.

 

[ArmyRick]

I am very pro cop, I have several friends who are OPP and some relatives on other forces. I have to say, there should be a warrant or upon conviction reason for swabbing for DNA.

I would also argue that depending upon the conviction as well (Violent crimes, sex crimes, etc). Taking DNA swab from someone for disturbing the peace who be a little excessive.

Even if we did swab for DNA for whatever reason, it is not going to stop a single murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. It may only be helpful IF the suspect left DNA behind at the crime scene and if he/she is caught.

I do have issues with giving police too many powers. An OPP friend of mine (no names) who has had to assist MNR and CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) with arrest for some really STUPID and petty law breaking, has convinced me that we need better and more thoroughly worded laws in Canada (and Ontario) instead of carte blanche powers for law enforcement. BTW, my friend was almost sick for having to arrest the person for what they did, it was that trivial.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

OZ.......you are correct, it can happen.

...and those that abuse their legally-enabled power should be charged and shown the door,..full stop.
Having said that, anyone involved in law enforcement usually has allegations against them all the time, it's another red herring dirtbags like to toss out there.

Amanda Bynes anyone??

 

[Remius]

"Nothing to hide=nothing to fear"

This can be used to violate just about every right guaranteed to us.  With that logic a police officer could just walk into my house for no reason, even if I'm not there.  Or how about take my son in for questioning about something without my knowledge or permission?  Or how about randomn strip searches while I take a walk for no reason?  Nothing to hide=nothing to fear right?  What's the problem being filmed, providing written statements or answering questions without a lawyer if I've got nothing to hide?

I really hate that argument.

Unfortunately we are going down a slippery slope. 

I'm all for DNA samples as a requirement for conviction.  But upon arrest?

I suppose DNA testing could be taken, verified against whatever database might exist but if the subject is found not guilty i would propose that all DNA test, references to or whatever be destroyed and wiped from whatever database there is.  There is no reason to keep any of that on file for any reason in that case.

I think that is a suitable compromise.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Even if we did swab for DNA for whatever reason, it is not going to stop a single murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. It may only be helpful IF the suspect left DNA behind at the crime scene and if he/she is caught.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2012/09/10/why_keep_convicted_killer_russell_williams_dna_testing_dates_secret.html
If results of the first two DNA tests were processed in time and revealed a match, they may have prompted officers to look more closely at people the two victims had in common. That just might have led them to Williams before he killed again.


So, any investigator may have put 2 and 2 together and asked Williams for a swab which he could have refused, if however, he had been arrested at some point and was in the database...............

There's that voice telling me again I'm just a dumb Guard and fingerprints and pictures are all we'll ever, ever need. :facepalm:

 

[Nemo888]

I'm a bit of a libertarian. Upon arrest could lead to abuse, but upon being charged with a crime it makes sense. Keeping it on file is another thorny issue. What if the citizen is found not guilty of the crime for instance.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Then it sits harmlessly in the same hard drive that your picture and fingerprints sit in now.

 

[ArmyRick]

Bruce,

Your getting really defensive, I'll put it to this way. Most Canadians probably don't want this and I agree nothing to hide = nothing to fear is a REALLY weak argument. Seriously lacking in any substance for justifying more police powers.

A big point I tried to drive home, is we need BETTER written laws.

As for the other example about Williams, notice the words "may have" and "If"....Sorry pal, hind sight is 20-20. The argument could easily go both ways.

 

[Remius]

Then it sits harmlessly in the same hard drive that your picture and fingerprints sit in now.

Except that it shouldn't.

On the flip side though, it could be used to exonerate people falsely accused and convicted of crimes.

Slippery slope.

If the goal is to help police then why not swab everyone at birth?  Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yup, nothing is 100% certain.

Crantor,...didn't you ever do a fingerprint thing in Grade school?  I did..............

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I guess I should have been more specific with my "nothing to hide" comment,......I had forgotten the built-in military paranoia factor.

That wasn't an all inclusive statement that everything is now on the table,.....for gawd's sake, we are talking about a more foolproof way of identifying people, good, bad, dead, etc.  Nothing more nothing less...........

If a cop came to my house and asked to submit a DNA sample because they were trying to eliminate suspects from my neighbourhood so they could use the resources more efficiently to maybe find someone's missing child then I offer it up in a heartbeat,....why??......because "nothing to hide".



EDIT: ..and ArmyRick, I could not agree more with you that lots of laws need to be rewritten.  But look how folks scream, yell and shout when they are....

 

[dapaterson]

Toronto's dirty cops, who rolled dealers and stole money, walked because of the blue line.

They are not the majority of cops.  (Far from it).  But there are enough out there that I'd rather not entrust any information to them about me at all, if I can avoid it.

(Similar argument going ot the Supreme Court next month to keep personal information away from another band of hoods - public service unions).

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Toronto's dirty cops, who rolled dealers and stole money, walked because of the blue line.

They are not the majority of cops.  (Far from it).  But there are enough out there that I'd rather not entrust any information to them about me at all, if I can avoid it.

(Similar argument going ot the Supreme Court next month to keep personal information away from another band of hoods - public service unions).

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yup, nothing is 100% certain.

Crantor,...didn't you ever do a fingerprint thing in Grade school?  I did..............

Me too.  I've had my kids finger printed and if I could I'd put a tracking bug in them until they're 18.

Honestly I've had my trust in the police shaken but I think I have enough faith in them to offer up my DNA to go on file.

A compromise may be this DNA swabbing depending on the type of crime someone is being arrested for. 

If swabbing someone leads to them being convicted for unsolved rapes or murders from years ago I would be really happy about that. 
If it causes someones life to be ruined due to police mistakes or screw ups then not so much.
Something like this may make the police's life easier in a way but they would also have to be extra vigilant with how it's used.

 

[Remius]

Yup, nothing is 100% certain.

Crantor,...didn't you ever do a fingerprint thing in Grade school?  I did..............

Actually no I didn't.  But not all databases for ID purposes can be used.  For example in the CF we all pretty much gave fingerprints for ID purposes but that database cannot be used by police to identify anyone for the puposes of investigating crimes.  Or at least that was what was explained to me.

I see you point about helping eliminate suspects (I hate to think that I would even be a suspect to begin with without credible reason).  But I would want that info stricken after.  They have no reason to keep it.

Like the gun registry, nothing to hide right?  Or an employer wanting to look at your facebook page you turning over your access to them (I know not the same but it is teh same justification).

If honest citizens have nothing to hide or fear they certainly should not have to justify their actions.  If they choose to cooperate or not.  It's their choice.

I support law enforcement.  But I've been burned or at least felt that way (and I was just a witness) and have seen some of my subordinates be put through the ringer as well, just for exercising their rights.  But I stil support them.  But my support has limits when certain things can violate the basic tenants of our society.

History has shown that some databases and information gathering can be abused.  Not saying that we are there but we shouldn't allow it to get there either.

Bruce, you are making compelling arguments but it is from an LEO perspective not from a citizen's rights perspective.

There are arguments tobe made for both which is likely why this is contenscious.

 

[J.J]

Toronto's dirty cops, who rolled dealers and stole money, walked because of the blue line.

They are not the majority of cops.  (Far from it).  But there are enough out there that I'd rather not entrust any information to them about me at all, if I can avoid it.

(Similar argument going ot the Supreme Court next month to keep personal information away from another band of hoods - public service unions).

:bla-bla:

You really don't know what your talking about

 

[Remius]

:bla-bla:

You really don't know what your talking about

How is what dataperson said trolling?

 

[J.J]

How is what dataperson said trolling?

How is that comment related to the discussion at hand other than to be inflammatory? The police were never accused of setting anyone up, there were never any leo interference to stop the prosecution. It was actually the contrary, some of the accused were arrested for breach of recogs, resist arrest etc, placed under surveillance etc. How does discussing different methods of identification of persons under arrest related to drug cops stealing/