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

[Unidox]

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?

It is a bit like being asked to submit your fingerprints, however, I would want a lawyer and a legally binding document that my volunteered DNA sample would be destroyed and/or deleted from the records once cleared of any wrong-doing. Would also like to add that by eliminating a suspect puts them closer to actually finding the person responsible for the crime.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The second example is excessive.
The first would be acceptable.

Though IMO, those 100 men would also submit to having their DNA information stored and checked against other crimes.
If you've done nothing wrong, why hide it?

[Kwewu]

Good police work. If you have nothing to hide, why are you so scared about an 'invasion of privacy'?

[The Floridian Coast]

Whether I would volunteer DNA or not really depends on the circumstance. For example, if I were living with some roommates, and a night where I was out someone broke in and raped and murdered one of them, and the police said there was blood under the victim's fingernails and the rapist's semen inside of them, I would volunteer DNA in that case because I'd want them to clear me, so I didn't get falsely accused and so the cops would find the person who actually did it.

On the other hand, in a hypothetical like the one above, I would very likely refuse because I know there is no conceivable reason I'd be suspected for the crime, and as much as I'd like them to solve it, the actual perpetrator will refuse anyway so it's really a waste of time to be able to cross half the people off the suspect list when nothing reasonably makes them suspects in the first place.

[Dyakovo]

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?

I'd call it sound police work. Although, no, I would not submit voluntarily to a DNA test.

[Wartom]

Everyone should have cameras engraved in their fronthead with live feed to local policestations.

[Sibirsky]

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.

[Gravlen]

On the other hand, in a hypothetical like the one above, I would very likely refuse because I know there is no conceivable reason I'd be suspected for the crime, and as much as I'd like them to solve it, the actual perpetrator will refuse anyway so it's really a waste of time to be able to cross half the people off the suspect list when nothing reasonably makes them suspects in the first place.

You know, I thought the same as you regarding the bolded part at first. But it turns out, quite surprisingly, that in the second story (which really happened back in 2004) the perpetrator voluntarily gave a sample of his DNA to the police which matched the DNA evidence found on the murdered woman.

He later got convicted for murder and attempted rape. He maintained throughout the trial that he had been too intoxicated to remember anything of the event, and it's likely that his "blackout" period is why he voluntarily submitted DNA evidence in the first place.

[Syvorji]

It is good police work. If anything, why not force everyone to volunteer, because that way, the plotter can be solved faster.

[Munathanura]

The first case: absolutely. The second case? No. The forcible taking of DNA samples, especially with no guarantee that they would be destroyed and not used in other cases, is an invasion of my privacy. And, yes, I would give up my DNA, although I would feel guilty as hell when I did so (me and stressful situations don't go well together ).

[Sibirsky]

It is good police work. If anything, why not force everyone to volunteer, because that way, the plotter can be solved faster.

If you force everyone, they are not volunteering.

[Fatae]

So basically, the police used a person's refusal to submit to state DNA testing to get a court order to force them to?


I don't usually follow what courts give out warrants for, but is simply refusing to submit to the state enough to get a bounty put on your head these days? If it is, then I'd say that that's rather frightening.

[Syvorji]

It is good police work. If anything, why not force everyone to volunteer, because that way, the plotter can be solved faster.

If you force everyone, they are not volunteering.

At least, Sibirsky, one knows how to get crimes solved faster. Or a national DNA database, meaning all of your DNA is stored there.

[Munathanura]

So basically, the police used a person's refusal to submit to state DNA testing to get a court order to force them to?


I don't usually follow what courts give out warrants for, but is simply refusing to submit to the state enough to get a bounty put on your head these days? If it is, then I'd say that that's rather frightening.

Refusal to give a DNA sample does not equate to a court order forcing the person to give DNA, it just allows the police to narrow the suspect list down. Later, when they found that one of the men who had refused to take a DNA test had left his fingerprints at the scene, they secured a court order to gain his DNA.

[Rentusera]

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.

This.

'Privacy' in the case of a serious criminal investigation is for people who have either a criminal offence to hide or are smartass liberals from NSG who deserve to be Internal Security Act'd anyway.

[Samuraikoku]

Quite simple really: Refusal to give DNA sample generates a presumption against you. I would know, I'm an attorney.

If I've done nothing wrong, why not give my DNA?

[Laerod]

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.

It leads to you becoming a person of interest. A warrant based solely on refusal to submit to a test is quite a stretch.

Though IMO, those 100 men would also submit to having their DNA information stored and checked against other crimes.
If you've done nothing wrong, why hide it?

Good police work. If you have nothing to hide, why are you so scared about an 'invasion of privacy'?

Everyone has something to hide.

[Samuraikoku]

Everyone has something to hide.

But not everyone has to hide a crime.

[Neo Arcad]

Ok, who the FUCK rapes an 80-year-old?!

[Laerod]

Everyone has something to hide.

But not everyone has to hide a crime.

Quite irrelevant in a society that respects the right not to incriminate yourself. Not to mention that in practice requiring everyone to be cross-checked in an investigation like that will sabotage the effort to catch that particular rapist because then too many people will refuse to participate for the thing to make sense in the first place.

[Sibirsky]

Ok, who the FUCK rapes an 80-year-old?!

A rapist.

Rape is not a crime of passion.

[Samuraikoku]

Quite irrelevant in a society that respects the right not to incriminate yourself.

If I've done nothing wrong I'm not incriminating myself. If I have, refusal to provide evidence in that aspect is practically admission of guilt.

Not to mention that in practice requiring everyone to be cross-checked in an investigation like that will sabotage the effort to catch that particular rapist because then too many people will refuse to participate for the thing to make sense in the first place.

That may seem the only issue with it, yes.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Quite simple really: Refusal to give DNA sample generates a presumption against you. I would know, I'm an attorney.

If I've done nothing wrong, why not give my DNA?

You may be an attorney, but your thinking is deeply flawed.

Refusal to give a DNA sample cannot "generate[] a presumption against you." It may be a factor in creating reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but nothing more. And anything more would be wrong and contrary to the whole point of the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

There are many reasons why one might not wish to give one's DNA to the police. One may not be guilty of the crime being investigated, but guilty of something else. One might quite rationally fear police misconduct or testing errors. One may simply value one's privacy. Etc, etc, etc. These are pretty basic values of the American criminal justice system.

[The Cat-Tribe]

So basically, the police used a person's refusal to submit to state DNA testing to get a court order to force them to?


I don't usually follow what courts give out warrants for, but is simply refusing to submit to the state enough to get a bounty put on your head these days? If it is, then I'd say that that's rather frightening.

It doesn't work that way. Refusal to submit to testing is not sufficient grounds for a search warrant.

[Laerod]

Quite irrelevant in a society that respects the right not to incriminate yourself.

If I've done nothing wrong I'm not incriminating myself.

Except you, like everyone else, has.

If I have, refusal to provide evidence in that aspect is practically admission of guilt.

Western interpretation of the legal right to refuse providing evidence begs to differ. That's why you have the right to remain silent rather than the right to remain silent specifically regarding that which you are accused of.

Not to mention that in practice requiring everyone to be cross-checked in an investigation like that will sabotage the effort to catch that particular rapist because then too many people will refuse to participate for the thing to make sense in the first place.

That may seem the only issue with it, yes.

Not really.