BS: Virginia law challenged

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:19 PM

Claymore-The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of random consent searches in such instances as asking an entire busload of people to allow the police to search their belongings. It has also maintained that a "reasonable person" is expected to know that they do not have to comply with a consent search, even if not informed, and has upheld convictions that occurred when someone, not knowing that they were not required to allow the search, turned over damning evidence (such as large quantities of controlled substances) to the police conducting consent searches. This principle would in fact allow police to simply ask a busload of people for a DNA swab.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: leprechaun
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM

Thanks El Tee.

Whenever I'm sifting through somebody's trash, the thought always comes to mind: "Nobody realizes how glamorous my job really is."

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 02:58 PM

Not really FL

As you'll note from above, the reasonable suspicion standard (for a search warrant) or the probable cause (for an arrest) and not the the articulable reason standard applies. When a person does not comply, he is simply given a hearing and upon a bench warrant is held in jail until he does comply. Since everything is based on judicial review, should DNA be obtained in an extra judical manner, the rememedy is the court system.

You should also note that as a police officer, it is perfectly legal for me to follow you and pick up a cigarette butt or a used coffee cup that you have thrown away and use it for a sample. I may not come into your home to do this, but I can go through your trash once you have put the can to the curb or thrown it on the ground in public. And believe me when I say that the biggest case in my career (Lyndon LaRouche and his associates) was made through extensive use of that technique. And when I worked sex crimes, some 30% of my cases were solved through just checking the trash.   

As for the reason the Supremes held this way, while I do not have the time to cite case law, I will tell you that these decisions were based on judicial predicate law based on previous holdings, and supprisingly most of the current holdings were done during the Warren Court, which was the most liberal in living memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:44 PM

Not really, Claymore. I will ask again : WHY has the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment only covers verbal testimony? Is any basis for such a conclusion given in the decisions, or did they just say "Well, it doesn't specifically include nonverbal testimony, so we won't protect it?" And actually, they could ask someone, even without articulable reason, to submit to a DNA test, without informing them that compliance was not mandatory. The Supreme Court has ruled that any "reasonable person" knows that they are not required to submit.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:32 AM

I will try and deal with several of the resulting questions without extensive explanations.

The reason that these requirements do not violate Constitutional provisions is that the right against self-incrimination is anchored in testimony, not un-spoken physical evidence. The only person in recent history to be required to testify against himself was Oliver North and several others in the Iran-Contra case and the Supreme Court dealt Congress a complete setback on that issue. Even Congress cannot compel a citizen to testify against his own self interest. However this does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, as I enumerated above. And once you think of it in that case, you can easily see why the DNA falls into that category. Suspects have had their fingerprints, and photos taken for years. Think of DNA as a biological photo.

Remember that there are five levels of legal culpability.

1. Articulatible Reason; the legal standard for conducting a traffic stop or to stop, question, and frisk a citizen.
2. Reasonable Suspicion; the standard for conducting a search of the person or property.
3. Probable Cause; the standard for an arrest.
4. Preponderance of Evidence; the standard for a finding in a Civil case.
5. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt; the standard for conviction in a Criminal case.

Each of those standards have volumes of legal discourse written about them, which I do not plan to replicate, but understand that those are the standards which a court looks at when deciding whether or not to admit evidence at a trial, and any evidence not meeting the appropriate standard is not admitted. As the laws are currently written, you would not be "an ordinary citizen" to have your DNA taken (with a cotton swab in the mouth to collect some cells from your gum line), but at least at level 2 above. And because of such issues as Chain of Custody (knowing who has handled the evidence) and specific prohibitions, the DNA is in no danger of becoming a genetic study database.

Now in some cases the police have asked local citizens to submit to a DNA test to try an find a serial rapist in a discrete community, but every citizen has the right at that level to refuse to take the test, (which under those situations, might put you into an investigative pool of one). But again that would be no real difference from taking your picture around to show to potential witnesses.

And even if you were not convicted of the crime charged, the law is clear that once it is legally collected under which ever standard applied at the time, the evidence can and will be retained for future use if need be.

I hope this clears matters up

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Sam L
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:47 AM

Gnu, well, I think you are right that a jury might mis-understand dna evidence, and I'm sure they have, and will again. But I think that's the trouble with juries, not with evidence. The reason we have twelve bone-heads off the street evaluate evidence, instead of trained pros who might more reliably understand it, is to prevent government controlling the courts. We sacrifice for that safeguard, and it's flawed, and compromised, like many other things we do.
    Sometimes the very safeguards of defendent rights backfire. I read about a man wrongly convicted of a murder, whose alibi--that he was out and about trying to sell a flashlight or something--might have been more convincing if it were admitted that he was a junkie. As it was, it sounded desperately absurd.
   I'd volunteer DNA without any arrest, not because I don't have any paranoia or because I utterly trust the government, but because there's a certain tiny degree of citizenship I'd weigh against it, and I don't care to be ruled by fear of the abuses I'd despise. Sure, abuses might occur, but in that case, I'll still give them my spit.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:31 AM

troll:

Reread Claymore's first sentence, my friend, and I think you will see that the wording implied that I didn't know where Loudoun Co. is located. Now, you may not know this area, but Claymore knows very well that I know where Loudoun County is. It's the third fastest growing county in the country and everyone with a pulse from around these parts knows very well where the danged this is. That seemed rather personal to me and thus... my response...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: DougR
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:24 AM

Wow, another sky is falling thread!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Troll
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:44 PM

Bobert, your first sentence "So now Claymore pulls out the old "who cares more for the safety of others" arguement. Hey, I'm the guy out there marchin' for
peace and Claymore is ready to re-enlist. Hmmmmmm? Normal Claymore response!" is a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with his post. It is, if I may venture an opinion (try and stop me!) a good example of argumentum ad homienum(sp?) . Dis-credit the man and you dis-credit his argument.
He simply explained the "why" of Virginias seeming grudge against truckers.
As far as his explaining where Loudon Co. is, not everyone on the Forum knows that.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:26 PM

Claymore, so the police are authorised, so you say, to collect all such evidence; that's a bit different than every person who might be considered a criminal having their DNA taken and registered in a government database. Register that of convicetd felons, yes; ordinary citizens, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:12 PM

re DNA testing: Virginia was the first state to convict a killer on the basis of DNA testing. That case involved the "Southside Strangler"-Timothy Wayne Spencer.I lived in Richmond, within blocks of three of those killings. A doctor I worked with was his second victim. I was working 3-11 and my wife and baby girl were home alone at that time each night. I hoped and prayed that this was a sure -fire way to identify a suspect. Too many people have been imprisoned and executed falsely. I only know how safe most people in Richmond felt when this guy was taken of the streets. Patricia Cornwell wrote one of her first books based on this case. This case, being so close to home, caused me much consternation re: the whole death penaly situation. But ultimatlely I finally decided I was against it becasue of the possibility that an innocent somewhere(maybe not Va.) might be falsely accused and put to death. So sorry so many have had such trouble in Va. with the police.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 08:29 PM

McGrath-quite true, but that's not just sloppy work, that's criminal and incredibly reprehensible. Why would they do something like that?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 07:50 PM

The trouble with DNA testing is that it is so accurate that in effect it's infallable - but that is only true if the lab work is impeccable, and if the police work has been impeccable too.

This means there is a real possibility of juries convicting because they rely on the infallable test, but without allowing for the fallable people who carried out the test, and the sloppy (or worse) procedures that perhaps contaminated the evidence.

It's analogous to the recent case where a woman who had been jailed in England after being convicted for the murder of her two babies was eventually released, when it turned out that the "expert" who had told the court that the possibility of the children having died naturally was many many millions to one against, and that evidence that the children had in fact been suffering from a severe and potentially fatal infection had been suppressed by the prosecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 07:26 PM

So now Claymore pulls out the old "who cares more for the safety of others" arguement. Hey, I'm the guy out there marchin' for peace and Claymore is ready to re-enlist. Hmmmmmm? Normal Claymore response!

And, gee, Claymore. Hmmmmm, ya say Loudoun County is on the other side of the mountain? What, you think I don't know that. That's where most of my relatives live and my business is in the middle of Leesburg which as you know is the county seat.

Now, as fir DNA testing. I may surprise some folks with my response but I have no problem of collecting samples of *convicted felons*. This might go a long way toward helping to solve a number of unsolved crimes.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 07:08 PM

SINSULL-They won't turn over DNA to private research companies any more than they turn over other evidence gathered. There's simply no reason or benefit to be gained, and the lawsuits, even if unsuccessful, would be far more trouble than any police department would want.

Claymore-the question I asked was WHY the Supreme Court said it was okay, given the Fourth and Fifth amendments.

gnu-if I recall correctly, the DNA evidence given was actually precise enough to narrow it down to O.J. alone. The problem was that the prosecution couldn't prove that the samples they compared were actually gathered at the crime scene.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM

Well, my question was answered. When viewed as a positive means of identification, DNA testing makes sense. I guess my problem with it is the extent DNA can be used to screw up a person's life beyond simply identifying him. What restraints are in place to see to it that the DNA samples are not used for research purposes? Or to determine genetically transferred diseases? I personally know people who refuse to be tested for diseases such as Crohn's for fear that a positive test result will cost them or their children a lifetime of health coverage.

What limits are there to prevent government funded use of "felony related" DNA to "prove" the existence of a "Bad Seed" gene or whatever? Paranoia? Seems to me I remember government funding of studies on black prisoners deliberately (and without permission or patient knowledge) infected with syphilis.

Maybe I am just not getting enough sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 04:16 PM

A urine test ? Ja Volt Herr Meior !(sp ?)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 04:03 PM

There you guys go again. As a former police Lieutenant in Loudoun County ( the county you cross into entering Virginia, Bobert) I can definitely speak to all of these issues.

1. The Supreme Court has ruled for many years that police are allowed and required to gather "identifying information" and "non testimonial evidence" on any accused person so long as the method used does not "shock the conscience". (The case on point was an attempt to remove a bullet fired into a suspect during the course of a murder. As long as the bullet was not required to be removed in the course of "accepted medical practices," the police could not remove it and use it as evidence against the patient). Such information specifically includes, finger prints, hair, blood and other fluids such as urine and DNA, as well as signatures and writing samples, if required. This evidence is also called "non-testimonial evidence," with the only prohibition being against requiring testimony. (However a suspect can be taped in any conversation within a jail, except with his attorneys. And even this can be overcome with a warrant if the attorney is engaged in furthering a crime).

These issues have long been approved by the Supremes, but ignorance abounds, and every time this issue comes up, I am absolutely astounded at the comments coursing through the MudCat about "another RIGHT taken away". While it seems that fanaticism and hysteria seem to result in a wash of endorphins for some of the authors of comments in threads like these, it might be useful to realize that the government is accountable to the court system in this country, and these "new" issues are subject to continual judicial review.

2. Concerning Virginia truck inspections: When the trucking industry was deregulated, the roads became awash in unregulated trucks and owner operators who drove with total disregard for the safety of the other motorists. My county started it's own truck inspection teams who would stop trucks and set up inspection points where we would inspect trucks in accordance with state and federal trucking regulations. What we found would stop the heart of any normal motorist. Well over 50% of the trucks we inspected had poor or completely non-functioning brakes. Many did not have functioning lighting, air brake lines, fifth wheel attachments or bald tires. If the violations were bad enough the truck was set to the side of the road and the driver cleared from the cab, and the truck towed to a repair facility. Contrary to the allegations made above, the violations had to be serious and affect the safety of other drivers on the road. IT SAVES LIVES. Not even mentioned were the number of truckers on drugs or sleep deprived, who were one turn away from killing someone. Every truck we put "Out of Service" saved a life. I leave you to judge the statements here and above as to who had the most interest in their fellow human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 03:48 PM

Fred - yup. I recall that rather vividly... because my ex had the trial on as soon as we got home from work and, after it was done for the day, she played the tape of what she missed while at work. I'm not saying he is innocent. I'm saying that DNA is not ABSOLUTELY conclusive in conviction, as many laymen have been "led" to believe by prosecuters. It certainly can be in exclusion, which is a completely different analysis. As for my point, if DNA is offered up as grounds for conviction, again, by those not aware of the pitfalls, a jury of twelve stupid people may convict an innocent man... and we all know there are twenty four stunned arses in the line. (BTW, DNA trepidation was not the only reason OJ was found innocent, but the prosecution put so much weight on it while attempting to obscure the fact that so many things were handled poorly, especially the blood samples, that the jury , I think, felt slighted. Judge that on your own.)

I don't want to start a discussion about OJ. I just pointed out that 84,000 others could have been there watching him do it and got a nick in the fray. Perhaps we should charge all of them as accessories ?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM

Interestingly - The Police in the UK are doing a number of case reopenings based on the advancement of DNA testing.

Results so far, a number of Rapists and Murderers convicted, as many a 30 years later, and more importantly, a number of others with convictions quashed.

Its not all bad.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Sam L
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 03:11 PM

gnu--are you sure about that in regard to the Simpson case? My understanding was that DNA should've convicted him, and he was aquitted for inexplicable reasons. At any rate, if he was aquitted in regard to DNA specifically, as you say, ...um, how does that example serve your point? Because next they'll be getting rid of juries?

DNA evidence has overturned many convictions and set innocent people free, many of them minorities who juries and witnesses wrongly convicted. The right to convict innocent people--yet another right they want to take away from us.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:28 PM

The sole reason I can see for not permitting a DNA database is if access is permitted to researchers or insurance companies -- esp. the latter. It might well be possible to determine a genetic predisposition for a disease or medical condition and insurance refused on that grounds.

As for sloppy lab work -- yes, it happens. And it's unacceptable. (I could add 'and it's Texas,' but I won't.) There is no answer, no recompense which can be made for such, but humans ARE fallible (even in the machines we create). All we can do is try to like hell to insure that no one is ever convicted on sloppy lab work, shoddy detective work, prejudice, or other such reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:18 PM

Thanks, Bagpuss, for the link to that story. It is indeed horrifying. I agree, gnu, no comparison. So much can depend on DNA in a criminal case, and, as that article illustrates, it can be too vulnerable to mistakes for someone's life to hinge on the findings.

This is another of our freedoms being taken away.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 01:44 PM

Um. Didn't the jurers find OJ innocent because the analysis of the DNA tests indicated that there were about 84,000 out of the US population that could have had the same DNA test results ? Beyond a reasonable doubt mean anything ? As for the basis that finger printing is routine, what the hell has that got to do with anything ? Two wrongs...

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 12:45 PM

Bagpuss, that's a horrifying story.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 11:59 AM

I too don't see the difference between taking a DNA sample for a national database and taking a fingerprint which is added to the existing national database. Shucks, my fingerprints are on file because I was in the Army. My wife's are on file because her father had a Top Secret clearance. They want my DNA, I don't care (as long as it doesn't hurt). I don't see what the heck they're going to do with it -- it's not like they can match it to anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Sam L
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:33 AM

Well, I'm not sure that the next step of abuse logically follows either--isn't it kind of like the "gateway" argument about pot?

I drove a truck all over the place and the only cop I ever had a problem with was a glorified security guy at the John Hancock building, who insisted we had to take our 13'2" truck down into the 12'11" entrance of the loading dock. I've had many encounters with cops, had a busy juvenile period, but always got along fine on basic manners. I do real well with a bit of putting my hands out the window when I get pulled over, as basic courtesy. Usually get off with a warning and a thanks. By "usually", I mean I've had one ticket in my life. Oddly enough I learned and first tested the hands thing in Richmond VA, when I lived there.
    Now I live in KY, can't compare the cops, but the morons who drive trucks on I-65 keep about 16 inches following distance from cars ahead of them. With two open passing lanes beside them. Nobody does that, anywhere else--it's the first thing a truck driver learns not to do. One day, when I have the time, I'm going to follow one of them to their next stop, and they'll have some 'splaining to do. The ignorant cowboy F-heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 08:56 AM

Yo, Lep,

I ain't beligerant to cops! Might of fact, the last time I got pulled, I was so nice to 'em that they told me that they were only gonna give me three tickets and then rattled off a list of things that usually write truckers for when they are pulled. But, my smiling ang joking didn't keep them from slapping the big red "Out of Servive" sticker on my truck.

Your friend must have been driving a brand new truck with every little log and document in place. He is a rarity, indeed. Stop in any truck stop in or around Virgina and listen to the truckers swappin' tips on getting thru Virginia. I still work there and see the State boys bustin' truckers everyday. In Loudoun County, there are tese two State guys who do nothing but bust truckers and everyday they go out and do just that. And if you look at any truck long enough, the Virgina laws are so picky, that they'll find some excuse to slap that big red "OS" sticker on the windshield!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bagpuss
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 05:36 AM

Here's one problem - particularly if you are from Texas...

US uproar at sloppy DNA tests blunders

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 12:24 AM

Well, Lep, you're not gonna have this old hippie to kick around on this one. Someone's gonna have to explain to me why I should have a problem with this. Like Forum Lurker, I don't really see the difference between taking a DNA sample and taking a fingerprint. I mean it's not like they're performing an invasive medical procedure to get the stuff. Nobody's even getting their finger pricked. You swab the inside of your own cheek and hand the swab to a technician. And they're only doing it with people accused of a handful of the most serious violent crimes, not every kid that gets popped for joy-riding or smoking a joint in the park.

And Virginia cops can't be any worse than Kentucky cops!

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 11:33 PM

If it's legitimate to take fingerprints from someone who's arrested, then DNA is the same. The question is, has the Supreme Court ever ruled that it is constitutional to fingerprint someone who hasn't been convicted, and if so, on what basis?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: leprechaun
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 11:30 PM

My friend the truck driver was stopped in Virginia. He got a warning for some minor violation and no ticket. Of course, he doesn't have any preconceived notions about cops being Nazis, and he seems to lack the belligerent attitude that might trigger a negative reaction from somebody in a uniform.

As far as a DNA database, I'm wondering what gymnastic twists of logic you oppressed freedom fighters are going to have to come up with to figure out how the data is going to be abused. I mean, if you happen to be a serial rapist, just be real careful not to get yourself arrested in Louisiana, Texas, Virginia and possibly other states, and you should do just fine in your chosen career.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 11:13 PM

This kinda gives a new angle ont he concept of a police state -- where the purpose of the state is to support those who police the citizens!

Oi, tempore, oi, mores!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 11:03 PM

Ashcroft want a billion dollars over the next five years to gather enough DNA to close State's backlogs on DNA testing. From the same story, I found the following (my emphasis):

In addition, the Justice Department is backing legislation allowing all samples collected by states - including those from people who have merely been arrested in Louisiana, Texas, Virginia and possibly other states - to be included in the national FBI database. The goal is to make the DNA profiles available to police nationwide.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 10:25 PM

Here's a link to a recent NPR news story.
When you get there click on the "Listen to All Things Considered Audio" link. You can listen to it for free, but if you want to read it you'll have to pay them for a transcript.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM

Kenny:

Hey, bro...

Hey, you are right on the money about the strict enforcement of every stupid and rediculous law they can figure out how to pay for the ink to print. Virginia has more laws that the entire rest of the universe.
They love lots of rules. Rules for how to have sex. Rules on how car hops can't wear roller skates. Yeah, the General Assembly thinks its job every year is to make more and more rules, except logical stuff like folks wearing seat belts, or shooting guns in housing developments. But other than hose, Virginia is the rule capitol of the world.

And, yeah, the Virgina Sate Police love busting yir butt for being out there trying to makem a living to pay the taxes that pay for their Nazi salaries. I hate 'em! You might have guessed that I did have a period in my life where I had to drive a truck. Yep, talk about terrorism. Everyday I was completely terrorized by these rednecks. Yeah, if they pull your truck, you ain't gonna get a ticket, you're gonna get anywhere from 3 to 12 of 'em and, no matter what, your truck is gonna get a big red sicker on the windshield that says "Out of Service" abd you're gonna sit there on the side of the road waiting for a big wrecker to come and tow your rig to the nearest *authorized* shop. Figure over a $1000 when you look in the side mirror and see these gangsters with their lights on!

Jerks!

A**holes!

Nazis!

And then they tell you to have a "Nice Day"?

Welcome to Virginia!

Virgina is for lovers!

But not truckers!

Got that one right, Kenny....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: khandu
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:52 PM

Uh...pardon...I meant "Sinsull"! Sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: khandu
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:51 PM

For years, many truckers have referred to Virginia as " The Communist State", due to all the "red-tape" that they hang the truckers with.

I don't know, Sorcha, other than your post, I have heard nothing of this. But nothing will surprise me.

Scare the hell outta the people, then they will be willing to give up their rights if, in doing so, they can feel safe again.

I think we are seeing the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Just hang on and wait!

We ain't seen nothin yet.

Ken

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:41 PM

Well, I haven't heard anything about this either, but being born and raised in Virginia, you can bet that these folks are just out to get you. Next to Texas, Virginia is the 2nd most backward sate in the US. Ranks 2nd in executions. 4th wealthiest state and something like 37th in education spending. Real friggin' provincial and down right behind the rest of the western world. But real purdy and Richmond is a great town.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 09:33 PM

I just did a search and didn't find a report. Do you have a link, Sinsul?

Oh, it just occurred to me that you may be questioning the invasive nature of taking a dna sample from everyone accused of a felony? Are you wondering if it's a matter of the right to privacy?

Since a dna sample is a simple matter of taking a swab from the inside of a mouth, off the top of my head it seems like anyone falsely accused would be most happy to have the prove to hand.

More information, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 08:30 PM

Yes, I too see that conflict. However, your post is a bit unclear. When you say that "The next step is...", do you mean this has actually been introduced? And what exactly has been "challenged"?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: BS: Virginia law challenged
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 08:12 PM

If I understood this TV report correctly, Virginia has had a successful law on the books which mandates taking DNA samples from convicted felons. It is successful in that several crimes have been solved when the test results were entered into databases and turned up matches.

The next step is a law which mandates taking DNA samples from anyone ACCUSED of a felony. Am I the only one who sees a conflict between this testing and "presumption of innocence"?

Hopefully, I misunderstood.