BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Asm. Tom Ammiano On Glass Breaking BART Cop
Don't Dump Unwanted Stuff On City Sidewalks
Parents Petition Caltrain to Reduce Train Speed In Palo Alto
Daisy Does the 49ers: Green Bay Tops SF
When you're arrested for a felony in the state of California, so is your DNA. The Golden State takes a DNA sample from everyone arrested for a felony, any felony, whether or not they’re eventually charged with a crime, much less convicted. But this isn't limited to rapists, puppy killers, and other violent offenders. This can apply to things like, say, drug arrests, those wrongfully arrested due to police misconduct, busted for writing a bad check, and people who've been arrested during political demonstrations. Not so free speech-y when you get your DNA is taken after expressing said right to free speech, right? Right.
Take, for example, Lily Haskell. She was arrested at a "peace rally" in San Francisco earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, Haskell, who was attending an Iraq War protest at Civic Center, was busted for "taking a person from police custody," which is a felony.
In March 2009, Lily Haskell attended a peace rally in San Francisco and was arrested. She was not charged with a crime and was quickly released, but not before being required to provide a DNA sample."When your DNA is taken after an arrest at a political demonstration, it can have a silencing effect on political action," said Haskell. "Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out."
Though people like Haskell can get their DNA expunged from the state database, it's a tedious and lengthy process.
Enter today's lawsuit, care of the ACLU of Northern California. See, the ACLU is seeking "to end California's policy of mandating that DNA is collected from anyone arrested for a felony, whether or not they are ever charged or convicted," basing their argument on the fact that it "violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and because of the harmful impact on communities of color."
What say you? While we don't mind genetic information culled from the Philip Garridos of the world, we don't really need every possible felon's DNA. Sounds costly, not to mention big brother-y. Would you mind having your DNA swiped if you kited a few checks and/or annoyed a police officer at a Dolores Park rally?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Is civil disobedience a felony? Something doesn't seem right, or am I missing something?
Yeah, "taking a person from police custody" sounds a bit more extreme than simply taking part in a sit-in. I'd like to hear more about what she allegedly did.
Apparently, she tried to "rescue" somebody in police custody / detention / whatever at a Mid-East-related demo in Civic Center, somebody who might have been involved with throwing rock(s) 'n stuff at said police.
There's a mechanism for expunging this record and having the DNA info omitted from the record, but it takes a while. Oh well. Prop 69 was the will of The People back in aught-four, just kicking in this year.
The ACLU could win this one - they could probably use a better plaintiff but oh well.
FYI, civil disobedience is breaking the law one is challenging. So the penalty is for whatever law you're disobeying, i.e., there is no "civil disobedience" violation.
Of course that woman wasn't arrested for just attending a political rally, was she?
Being arrested doesn't mean you actually committed a crime.
"She was not charged with a crime and was quickly released."
Wow-- you couldn't ask for a stronger case to challenge this issue. Awesome.
I'm all for not doing this to people who haven't actually done anything, but how is having your DNA put on file any different from fingerprinting aside from the differences in the collection procedure?
It's different because the statute requires that DNA collection occur after ARREST regardless of whether the person is eventually charged.
Fingerprints on the other hand are collected after the person is CHARGED which means that the police believe there is enough evidence to prosecute. This means that the cops can conduct a search by merely picking you up for any old felony, swab your cheek, and then turn you loose.
Also, DNA evidence is pretty damning once the cops have it whereas fingerprint "analysis" is dubious at best.
Why does the statute require that? Or is it one of those things that was just decided at some point and now we defend it come hell or high water.
More specifically, is there some rational reason why the requirements for having your DNA on file somewhere are different from the requirements for having your fingerprints on file somewhere?
Just do it upon conviction. Problem solved.
The problem with that is that a lot of dead-bang rape convictions come from evidence gathered during prior sex crime arrests.
It all has to do with what kind of society you want to live in...