Feds to collect DNA from everyone they arrest
The AP put out an article detailing a plan to collect DNA from every person arrested by federal law enforcement agencies.
Key points from the article:
- Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006.
- Justice officials estimate the new collecting requirements would add DNA from an additional 1.2 million people to the database each year.
- Now innocent people’s DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime.
Now, just because someone is arrested doesn’t mean they are guilty of anything. Large numbers of innocent people could have their DNA collected without cause and put into a government database. Given the previous and current failures of government, how could an innocent person possibly expect them to simply erase their entry from the DNA database?
Once again, another violation of Americans privacy is being implemented under the guise of “keeping us safe”.
If you haven’t done a crime, then what’s the big deal? So if they have DNA samples, this will eliminate the prolonged search of criminals who are wanted. If your DNA sample is taken, and you have committed no crime, then what do we have to hide?
evidently you are one of those people who are willing to sacrifice liberty. Ever read the 4th Amendment?
Again, morales ……if you have done nothing, then what ARE YOU HIDING?????
Morales? You mean morals?
That comment is a classic example of what is wrong with the people of this nation.
You need not be hiding anything in order to be secure in your person, papers, etc etc.
People have a right of privacy.
I understand what your saying, but the way you word your views, sometimes comes across like you have something to hide. I think in the eyes of our beloved feds, that depiction would give those agents the wrong idea.
I fully agree that privacy is a virtue, a liberty taken far to lightly, you really don’t need to continue regurgitating the Fourth Amendment like you wrote it. Don’t you have any other means of establishing a view? Memorizing the bill of rights, then trying to rehearse them to your readers only to make yourself sound important is pretty lame!
I need not make any other point besides the 4th Amendment.
Those sheep who choose to willingly sacrifice even one of their rights (”but if you haven’t done anything, you have nothing to hide”) don’t deserve any of them.
Even if I, or anyone else for that matter, had something to hide, and the feds got suspicious, that still isn’t enough to obtain a warrant.
It would really help if people actually educated themselves on the matters of Constitutional law before they chose to debate it.
As for educating one self, look in the mirror. You need to heed your own advice. Probable cause, once again by LAW allows a warrantless search. There is no single definition of probable cause, and when it does exist, it varies from case to case. Bascially that means that law enforcement have objective evidence that you have, or are committing a crime. Some states allow warrantless searches and arrests if law enforcement have reasonable suspicion. Those arrested without a warrant, allows for a prompt hearing to determine sufficient probable, or sufficient reasonable cause exists. So you see, clearly there is more to law than memorizing the Constitution and thinking you know what you are talking about. You seriously need to view other sources to get the full idea of state, federal, statute, and common law. There is much more to the Constitution, and the laws that co-exist with that document, than basing your views off of one lone document. Yes its the grand daddy of them all, but there is other information that go along with it! So pull your head out, get off your single source claims and research!
You are absolutely insane.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If they are going to execute a search warrant, PROBABLE CAUSE must be established. Without PC, no warrants shall be issued.
Exactly which states allow warrants to be issued without PC?
You are seriously deranged! Go to a book store and read a book on common law. Any book will do!!! It is FACT that the law enforcement agencies, regardless of what you may think you know, can and will use reasonable cause, or reasonable suspicion to in fact search, detain, without warrant. Is it right? It is clear that the definition of PC is unclear. And yet you try to question fact? You seem to think you know everything about the law, when in fact those of us whom are related to law enforcement can and will be a better source of information.
You can go on flabbering about the fourth amendment all you want, but fact is fact! The fact is you obviously no absolutely nothing about other state laws. Perfect example, remember all those suppose of drug raids in AMerican suburbs? How many of those houses were the wrong locations, and yet they too, did not have warrants issued for those suppose of contraband locations.
The fact is, you have absolutely no respect for anyones views or opinions, and you are clearly off your rocker.
You can try to sell your other readers on your pyscho babble bull shit, but eventually they will see through you as I have. Keep reciting the Amendments if it makes you feel better, but no amount of fact will sway your opinion~
Since youre so well informed on the law, perhaps you could provide a definition of “reasonable cause”, because that term doesn’t appear in any legal dictionary at all.
Probable cause, reasonable suspicion. No such thing as “reasonable cause”, kind of odd that someone who claims to know as much as you do would just make up a word like that.
Being related to law enforcement means absolutely nothing, with the exception of getting out of the occasional traffic ticket. It certainly doesn’t bestow some level of knowledge, especially considering the fact the relatives you refer to dont execute search warrants. What words mean more, those uttered by the Supreme Court and the Constitution, or those uttered by your relatives that you naively draw like a gun? I have court rulings and the Constitution on my side, whereas you have the words of relatives. Seriously, please stop humiliating yourself by assuming you know something about the law simply because you are related to someone who works with a certain segment of said law.
I asked you to specifically name the states that issue warrants without an affidavit affirming probable cause. You didnt do that. Since you claim they exist, it is up to you to prove it by naming said states.
Which drug raids would you be referring to? Those raids executed on the WRONG house as opposed to the one listed on the WARRANT?
There is no need to respect anyones opinion when it is FACTUALLY wrong. Nor is there any need to respect someone who puts forth an opinion contradictory to OVERWHELMING FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
You claim to know all of these facts, yet you haven’t posted a single one. Why is that?
This is whats called proof, you may want to try it sometime: Texas Law Link
Texas Law:
Art. 18.01. [304] SEARCH WARRANT
(b) No search warrant shall issue for any purpose in this
state unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the
issuing magistrate that probable cause does in fact exist for its
issuance. A sworn affidavit setting forth substantial facts
establishing probable cause shall be filed in every instance in
which a search warrant is requested.
Do yourself a favor and read the actual law, getting yourself educated in the topic at hand would do you a world of good.
What Surefire seems to overlook is the fact that the poor do not have the money to hire attorneys to fight the injustices of the elitist laws. I guess the Constitution has basically become to government what the bible has become to religion–a way to control the inferior masses.
Admin:
Allow me to enlighten you.. Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.
Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual’s Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 (’90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (’68).
Another example~
By Kimberly A. Crawford, J.D., July 1995
Special Agent Crawford is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.
The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.1 Searches are presumed unreasonable if conducted without search warrants and the burden of proof is on the government to establish that a warrantless search was justified under an exception to the warrant requirement.2
With respect to seizures, there is no presumption that the government needs a warrant. To be reasonable under the fourth amendment, seizures need only be based on governmental interests that outweigh the intrusions upon an individual’s privacy rights.3 In theory, the formula for determining the reasonableness of a seizure is relatively simple: The
greater the intrusion on an individual’s privacy interests, the more facts and circumstances the government must have to support its claim of an overriding interest. Thus, an arrest, which is the most significant form of seizure, requires the government to establish its interests to the level of probable cause.4
In contrast, an investigative detention, which is a much reduced
intrusion, requires only a showing of reasonable suspicion.5 In reality, however, determining the reasonableness of a seizure can be an extremely difficult task. No mathematical or scientific formula exists for predicting when facts and circumstances rise to the level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause; yet, law enforcement officers are required to make such judgments on a daily basis and act on them. Once acted upon, those judgments are subject to seemingly endless defense challenges.
Traditionally, defense challenges to seizures have centered around the facts and circumstances used to justify the action or the amount of force used to accomplish it. However, one defense challenge to seizures goes beyond the traditional arguments and focuses on the law enforcement officer’s state of mind. This challenge alleges that a seizure is un-constitutional if the seizing officer has an ulterior motive and uses the
seizure merely as a pretext to allow further investigation.
You wanted FACT well you got it! You seriously need to reread the fourth amendment…it says clearly UNREASONABLE searches and seizures!
Your suppose of court rulings?? You mean rulings that best suit your need for arguements?! Time and time again you claim almighty knowledge to your readers, and time again, I debunk your theories? Why is that? Could it be that someone out there knows how to discredit you?
The fact of the matter is, you have your own opinion, and I have mine. Thats the great thing about this country~ I just hope we as a society hold on to that fact, as well as your readers~
Given that the FBI continually violates numerous Constitutionally protected rights, that isn’t exactly a credible source. Ever heard of Waco? Ruby Ridge? FBI didnt really abide by the Constitution there.
a) I think everyone can agree that the Supreme Court isnt always correct, as is the case in Kelo v New London.
b) The Terry ruling resulted in what is now known as a “Terry Search”, aka a pat down.
c) Lets take a look at a quote from the ruling in that case:
“There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. ”
d) In Delaware v. Prouse the Court ruled that the Delaware Highway Patrol stopping “random” vehicles for no reason other than to check their licenses was unconstitutional
Court rulings:
-State of New Jersey vs SJ Courty -New Jersey state Supreme Court found that “consent searches” during traffic stops, where individuals are asked for consent to search themselves or their vehicles are unconstitutional without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime.
- Minnesota vs Fort- Minnesota Supreme Court rules that “consent searches” during traffic stops are unconstitutional because they violate the requirement that searches be reasonable. Searches without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity are banned.
- Indianapolis vs Edmond- The Court stopped Indiana from setting up roadblocks for the explicit purpose of warrantless drug searches.
- Arizona vs Hicks- A decision to require probable cause for searches, continuing the strong 4th Amendment standard which requires more than just suspicion to allow a search. In this case, the police had lawfully entered an apartment and saw an expensive stereo, which an officer assumed to be stolen because of the neighborhood and other contributing factors (a shotgun and black mask in the room). The police proceeded to move and search the stereo for serial numbers, which they discovered were stolen. The Court ruled that the police officer’s acts with the stereo constituted a search and the police would need to meet the “probable cause” standard in order to lawfully conduct a search of the private equipment.
Need more?
Incidentally, you haven’t debunked anything.
You have only proven 2 things:
You failed English in high school
and
Different courts have different interpretations.
The problem with that is that interpretations are a result of peoples opinions, beliefs, and biases.
Why interpret when you can read the actual words?
Are there exceptions to the exclusionary rule?
Yes. There are certain instances in which the Fourth Amendment is violated, yet the evidence can still be used against the criminal actor. The most notable is the Good Faith exception, which holds that evidence obtained by police officers who were relying in good faith on a valid search warrant that later is found to be lacking probable cause is still admissible. Under the Good Faith exception, evidence will be admissible when there is an objectively reasonable basis for the officers’ mistaken belief that the warrant authorized the search that they conducted. However, that exception does not apply if the police improperly execute the warrant; if the police provide false information to a judge to obtain the search warrant; if the search warrant is so deficient that a reasonable police officer couldn’t believe it to be valid; or if the police searched beyond the places covered in the search warrant.
It is important to note, however, that even if evidence is excluded because of a Fourth Amendment violation, that the evidence can still be used in several instances, including grand jury testimony, bail hearings, sentencing, and civil trials. Moreover, the exclusionary rule only applies to governmental actors (such as police officers); evidence obtained by private parties in violation of the Fourth Amendment can still be admitted in a criminal prosecution (as long as the private parties were not acting as an instrument of the government).
What is probable cause?
Probable cause basically boils down to a “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime exists at the place being searched or that a suspect has committed a crime. Because a “reasonable belief” is a relatively fluid concept, probable cause determinations are based, in part, on a magistrate’s common sense as applied to the totality of the circumstances. In other words, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit for a warrant, including the truthfulness, credibility, and basis of knowledge of the persons supplying information, the test is whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place or that a suspect committed a crime.
What is the Fourth Amendment?
Most search and seizure laws are grounded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It also provides that arrest warrants cannot be granted without probable cause. The operative word, here, is “unreasonable,” meaning that reasonable searches are permitted if a judge believes there to be probable cause to search for evidence of a crime, or if particular circumstances make a warrantless search proper. Evidence obtained by government officials (police officers) in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in a criminal prosecution - this is known as the exclusionary rule, which exist to deter police officers from obtaining evidence in an unlawful manner
Are there exceptions to the exclusionary rule?
Yes. There are certain instances in which the Fourth Amendment is violated, yet the evidence can still be used against the criminal actor. The most notable is the Good Faith exception, which holds that evidence obtained by police officers who were relying in good faith on a valid search warrant that later is found to be lacking probable cause is still admissible. Under the Good Faith exception, evidence will be admissible when there is an objectively reasonable basis for the officers’ mistaken belief that the warrant authorized the search that they conducted. However, that exception does not apply if the police improperly execute the warrant; if the police provide false information to a judge to obtain the search warrant; if the search warrant is so deficient that a reasonable police officer couldn’t believe it to be valid; or if the police searched beyond the places covered in the search warrant.
It is important to note, however, that even if evidence is excluded because of a Fourth Amendment violation, that the evidence can still be used in several instances, including grand jury testimony, bail hearings, sentencing, and civil trials. Moreover, the exclusionary rule only applies to governmental actors (such as police officers); evidence obtained by private parties in violation of the Fourth Amendment can still be admitted in a criminal prosecution (as long as the private parties were not acting as an instrument of the government).
We can keep this going all night long~
Yup, we can go back and forth forever, but the difference is I can put forth my own opinions instead of copying and pasting
Look back at your responses, thats so pasty its pathetic! HAHA
The only thing I pasted was the court decisions, thats it.
HEY ADMIN??
R.F.I.D.’ S????…your reminder! Also resources tab for Decl., Consti., so forth???