The criminal system in America

[RedWhiteBlue]

When a criminal is arrested, he is fingerprinted. As far as I know they don't take a DNA test also. Why is this? I should be common procedure all of America that when you fingerprint a new criminal when booking him,you take a DNA sample too. How many more murderers/rapist would be caught if this was the case? Probably hundreds more. I bet a thousand cold cases would have been solved. DNA is huge. Merely fingerprinting is outdated.

I believe they do this in Maryland and some other States but it should be a nationwide practice.

I know of many cases where a rapist has gotten off after being charged because a DNA sample was taken against the law. All evidence and DNA pointed to him but because the DNA sample used to get him was taken from a disturbing the peace arrest which was no allowed. So when police looked up his DNA they found it matched a rape 6 years ago. They charged him for the rape. He was let off free and clear because the DNA sample shouldn't have been taken. Rapist gets out scott free to rape again.

We need some major changes in our criminal system. This is the tip of the iceberg. I don't know how many murders or rapes have taken place by guys that were out on parole.

I don't know why this is bother me so much today.

 

[KennyB]

Great idea. DNA evidence is rock solid.

 

[ERockMoney]

I believe many states do allow this based on the 2014 ruling in Maryland where the Supreme Court overturned a ruling that would have allowed a rapist to go free after he was arrested on gun charge and his DNA was a hit for a rape several years prior. I believe the court initially ruled this violated his fourth amendment rights, but the Supreme Court overturned it opening the doors to allow this practice.

You are correct, I think 15-18 states still do not allow this. The 30+ that do allow have varying caveats to the practice, i.e., the seriousness of the arrest, presence over prior felonies on their record, etc. Some states require a probable cause hearing, if there was not an existing warrant that required probable cause to obtain.

 

[Mr_Mark]

It makes logical sense.... which means it probably will never happen.

 

[Enfuego]

Because you would be allowing DNA tests on people not yet convicted of a crime.

You can't round people up and make them give a DNA sample before a conviction.

 

[Hamilbet]

Because you would be allowing DNA tests on people not yet convicted of a crime.

You can't round people up and make them give a DNA sample before a conviction.

This

 

[Mr_Mark]

Because you would be allowing DNA tests on people not yet convicted of a crime.

You can't round people up and make them give a DNA sample before a conviction.

But they take DNA samples for suspects? and RWB is suggesting DNA swabs for arresties...

But why are the samples 'deleted' if there is no conviction? (I believe that is the current process)

 

[aceduecetrey]

When I was on federal probation, they required me to submit my DNA. My crime was white collar.

 

[Enfuego]

But they take DNA samples for suspects? and RWB is suggesting DNA swabs for arresties...

But why are the samples 'deleted' if there is no conviction? (I believe that is the current process)

For suspects, the cops have to have a warrant or the person has to volunteer to give the sample.

 

[ERockMoney]

For suspects, the cops have to have a warrant or the person has to volunteer to give the sample.

This is no longer accurate for suspects who have been arrested since the Supreme Courts ruling in 2014. Several states still follow the previous procedure, but 30+ do not.

 

[tatehill2000]

It makes logical sense.... which means it probably will never happen.

haha,,, im laughing so you cant hear the crying,,

 

[Enfuego]

This is no longer accurate for suspects who have been arrested since the Supreme Courts ruling in 2014. Several states still follow the previous procedure, but 30+ do not.

What do you mean?

 

[texansfan]

From 2013

BY PETE WILLIAMS AND ERIN MCCLAM, NBC NEWS

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.

The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

Under those specifications, the court said, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”


http://usnews.newsvine.com/_news/20...t-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest

 

[ERockMoney]

What do you mean?

A warrant or consent is no longer required to take a DNA sample under certain circumstances when a person is arrested, most states I believe require the arrest to be a felony or a misdeameanor if the suspect has a history of felonies. Since the Supreme Court ruling on the Maryland case in 2014, over thirty states have adopted this type protocol for DNA samples.

 

[Enfuego]

A warrant or consent is no longer required to take a DNA sample under certain circumstances when a person is arrested, most states I believe require the arrest to be a felony or a misdeameanor if the suspect has a history of felonies. Since the Supreme Court ruling on the Maryland case in 2014, over thirty states have adopted this type protocol for DNA samples.

Yeah, for felony or a guy with a history of felonies. Makes sense.

I figured if it was a guy that had outstanding traffic tickets or something like that, they couldn't do it.