Good police work or invasion of privacy... Or?

[Gravlen]

A story:
An 80-year old woman is attacked on the street, dragged into a basement and raped. The assailant flees the scene afterwards, but leaves DNA evidence behind. A search through the DNA database reveals no hits among previously convicted felons.

The police, having gotten few solid leads from the crime scene, requests access to phone company records for the area. Through those records they find that 100 men had cell phones turned on or in use around the time of the crime in that particular area. The police then requests that those 100 men take part in a voluntary DNA test to check their DNA against that found on the victim, based on the fact that their cell phones were in the area near the crime scene around the time of the rape. It is emphasized that the DNA tests will only be used for this specific purpose, that the tests will not be checked against other unsolved crimes, and that the tests will not be stored but will be destroyed afterwards.

However, it is also mentioned that refusal to take part in the DNA tests could lead to the police attaining a court order in order to get the tests done.

The story continues:

Several of the 100 men refuse to voluntarily provide DNA. Among them was one man whom the police got extra interested in. They got his fingerprints, and matched them to fingerprints found at the scene of the crime. A court order soon followed, and a DNA test revealed a 99.9% match to the DNA found on the victim.

A different story:
A woman is beaten to death in a small town. When crime scene investigators discover DNA evidence on the murdered woman, the police requests that every male person in the town above the age of 14 volunteer a DNA sample for comparison, in total 1.232 people. This also includes people with verifiable alibies. The same conditions as above apply.



What do you think?
Is this just sound police work and not problematic in the slightest, or is it taking it too far? Would you voluntarily have submittet to a DNA test if you were one of the people requested to do so?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I do think it was a violation of privacy and I would fight tooth an nail to not have to submit to a DNA test.

[Wamitoria]

Good police work. They didn't kill any random minorities this time.

[Fartsniffage]

We could just save time if DNA samples were taken at birth and a law introduced requiring a sample from every adult in the country.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

[Fartsniffage]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

And does the decision not to equate to probable cause?

[Peddieville]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

And does the decision not to equate to probable cause?

You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[United Dependencies]

Provided that they got a warrent to the the DNA off of someone who did not wish to put if fourth and provided that they also followed correct procedure for getting cell phone records, I have no problem with this.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

And does the decision not to equate to probable cause?

Not by itself, no. Of course not.

[Buffett and Colbert]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

But the examples provided that some would be forced to submit DNA.

[Laerod]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

But the examples provided that some would be forced to submit DNA.

With a court order. Not exactly different from a court order requiring your finger prints or allowing the police to search your house.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

But the examples provided that some would be forced to submit DNA.

No. The examples provided that some were told "that refusal to take part in the DNA tests could lead to the police attaining a court order in order to get the tests done" and police used refusals as leads to narrow suspects and later got DNA tests ordered for one suspect based on a fingerprint match.

[Buffett and Colbert]

But the examples provided that some would be forced to submit DNA.

No. The examples provided that some were told "that refusal to take part in the DNA tests could lead to the police attaining a court order in order to get the tests done" and police used refusals as leads to narrow suspects and later got DNA tests ordered for one suspect based on a fingerprint match.

Fuck you and your "reading" and your "logic."

[The Cat-Tribe]

No. The examples provided that some were told "that refusal to take part in the DNA tests could lead to the police attaining a court order in order to get the tests done" and police used refusals as leads to narrow suspects and later got DNA tests ordered for one suspect based on a fingerprint match.

Fuck you and your "reading" and your "logic."

[Gravlen]

No. The examples provided that some were told "that refusal to take part in the DNA tests could lead to the police attaining a court order in order to get the tests done" and police used refusals as leads to narrow suspects and later got DNA tests ordered for one suspect based on a fingerprint match.

Fuck you and your "reading" and your "logic."

The worst part is that it's an accurate understanding

[Wartom]

All those hundred men should have been executed without a trial or investigation to be sure.

[Farnhamia]

All those hundred men should have been executed without a trial or investigation to be sure.

And if Caesar still lived, you'd be chained to an oar.

I can't quite decide if you're just being silly or actually do think this. I'll opt for silly ITG display, I think.

[Lacadaemon]

I'm not happy about the phone company just handing over records like that.

And in the second case, absolutely not.

[Bitchkitten]

We could just save time if DNA samples were taken at birth and a law introduced requiring a sample from every adult in the country.

Yes, we'd all be safer.

My grandfather used to say that for any right we have, he could think of a perfectly good reason why it'd be better for us to give it up, public welfare wise. Or who was it who said "the only state easy to police is a police state"?

[Gravlen]

We could just save time if DNA samples were taken at birth and a law introduced requiring a sample from every adult in the country.

Yes, we'd all be safer.

My grandfather used to say that for any right we have, he could think of a perfectly good reason why it'd be better for us to give it up, public welfare wise. Or who was it who said "the only state easy to police is a police state"?

Why have a central DNA registry when you can ask entire towns to volunteer samples when a criminal case comes into existence? Narrows the field, even if you would have to keep close tabs on those who won't participate.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

DNA samples should be destroyed after the investigation is ended.

[United Dependencies]

DNA samples should be destroyed after the investigation is ended.

Unless the investigation leads to a trial and a conviction.

[Lackadaisical2]

I dunno, it always seems wrong the refusing to submit to a search could lead to a warrant for something off of you... <1/100 chance doesn't seem like reasonable grounds for a search.

Also, remind me never to take my cell phone with me the next time I rape someone.

[Dododecapod]

Seems to me the police have a right to ask. As long as you have the right to refuse, everything's fine.

[Kobeanare]

If you volunteer your DNA, your privacy has not been violated.

What about the phone records?