TN lawmaker files bill to require DNA collection for all felony offense arrests
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — A bill from an East Tennessee Republican would require law enforcement to collect a DNA sample for all those arrested for felony offenses in the state.
State Rep. John Crawford (R-Bristol-Kingsport) filed House Bill 473, which would establish procedures for DNA collection and the management of biological samples by law enforcement.
Don't think so. This is not good. The sample is required on arrest and according to the bill, the sample will be destroyed and records deleted on dismissal or acquittal. So, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, no crime conviction, no record. BUT I'm quite sure that the sample will be matched to everything, and probably promulgated into records not under Tennessee's control, WHILE the case is pending. So that's an unlawful search, and once the data is in the system, it's in the system. Nope. Bad law. Require a sample on conviction, no problem. This? Uh-uh.
I have a problem with collecting DNA evidence on arrest. Only if you are convicted should they be able to do such an invasive thing. An arrest is not a conviction. Many people arrested are innocent and that seems like a violation of our 4th and 5th amendment rights.
I agree upon conviction, not before, and as to taking upon arrest and deleting it if not convicted, another poster is correct, it will be picked up by state, federal, and lord knows hom many other databases.
I had a Doctor 15 years ago that put in the wrong code in my medical records, saying I had cotards syndrom (walking corpse syndrome). I saw it in my medical records, called his office twice about it. Finally it disappeared from Novant's system, but then I ran into it about a dozen times in other data bases, it took about 7 years to get it cleared. So all of the connected databases all get the information, probably a lot of them get it without any notification.
I agree with the above reasons, but know this will cost the state by their estimates 3 million a year and only 9 new state positions and has been demonstrated by all levels of government, they always underestimate cost and bodies needed.
All comments are moderated due to spam, drunks and trolls. Keep 'em civil, coherent, short, and on topic. Posted comments are the opinions of the commenters, not the site administrator.
Don't think so. This is not good. The sample is required on arrest and according to the bill, the sample will be destroyed and records deleted on dismissal or acquittal. So, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, no crime conviction, no record. BUT I'm quite sure that the sample will be matched to everything, and probably promulgated into records not under Tennessee's control, WHILE the case is pending. So that's an unlawful search, and once the data is in the system, it's in the system. Nope. Bad law. Require a sample on conviction, no problem. This? Uh-uh.
ReplyDelete"Require a sample on conviction, no problem."
Delete100% agreed, all the other attempts to gather information clearly goes against some amendment.
I have a problem with collecting DNA evidence on arrest. Only if you are convicted should they be able to do such an invasive thing. An arrest is not a conviction. Many people arrested are innocent and that seems like a violation of our 4th and 5th amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteBeat me to it.
DeleteMe three. For the exact same reason.
DeleteCriminal invaders have none of the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We need more trebuches.
DeleteGonna nail you for that poontang you helped yourself to when she was drunk. Oh, and child support. That will work out better than a national ID system
ReplyDeleteMore of the governments guilty so screw your due process.
ReplyDeleteI agree upon conviction, not before, and as to taking upon arrest and deleting it if not convicted, another poster is correct, it will be picked up by state, federal, and lord knows hom many other databases.
ReplyDeleteI had a Doctor 15 years ago that put in the wrong code in my medical records, saying I had cotards syndrom (walking corpse syndrome). I saw it in my medical records, called his office twice about it. Finally it disappeared from Novant's system, but then I ran into it about a dozen times in other data bases, it took about 7 years to get it cleared. So all of the connected databases all get the information, probably a lot of them get it without any notification.
I agree with the above reasons, but know this will cost the state by their estimates 3 million a year and only 9 new state positions and has been demonstrated by all levels of government, they always underestimate cost and bodies needed.
ReplyDeleteNever trust the government.
ReplyDelete