Advocates for swabbing people for DNA as soon as
they’re arrested, say it helps to solve hard-to-crack cases when other leads
grow cold. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials say, it can help prevent
crime by catching repeat offenders earlier in their criminal career, reported Stateline.
“We started back in old days with mug shots, then
people’s fingerprints,” Meyer said. “Now in the 21st century, we need to start
using DNA to the fullest extent.”
But opponents, including defense attorneys and
civil rights groups, say that when people are swabbed for a DNA sample when
they’re arrested, they are being treated as if they’re suspects in other crimes
or even implicating themselves in crimes they may not be suspected of.
“You can always collect DNA from someone convicted
of a crime, so why do you need to frontload that and collect DNA from someone
presumed innocent?” said Barry Pollack, president of the National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
States have been passing and expanding DNA
collection programs over the past decade. In 2013, President Barack Obama
signed a law that set aside $10 million a year for three years in federal funds
that states could tap to launch or expand their DNA programs.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the practice,
saying taking samples at the time of arrest doesn’t violate the Fourth
Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. “Taking and
analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and
photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure,” the court wrote in a 2013 decision Maryland
v. King.
Opponents say the laws take a dragnet approach, and
ensnare people who haven’t yet been convicted of a crime in other legal
battles.
“What is happening is not that law enforcement is
seeking evidence that the person committed the crime they were arrested for,
but seeking evidence that this person committed some unrelated, unsolved
crime,” said Pollack of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
“It is neither going to strengthen the case against the person that has been
arrested, nor weaken it. It has nothing to do with that case.”
Oklahoma last year passed a law requiring DNA
collection upon arrest for a felony, with the sample to be automatically
destroyed if charges are dismissed.
Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the American
Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, said police already are able to get a warrant
for DNA if it’s necessary for investigating a crime. Testing people whose DNA
isn’t needed is a fishing expedition that will exacerbate existing backlogs, he said.
“You’re growing the haystack to where it’s even more
difficult to find those needles,” he said.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment