CrimLaw

---

An article fawning over the forcing of non-convicted persons to turn over their DNA so the government can check to see if they might have been involved in a crime in the past for which they are not charged.

The writer seems to have no real world knowledge about how the system actually works. He equates DNA gathered for cold-hits with fingerprinting. However, the reason for fingerprinting is to identify the person who has come in who might be giving a false name. It doesn't always work but it is a useful tool for officers dealing with frequent flyers who can lie convincingly about who they are. DNA isn't being used in that manner. The reason it is being taken is to find out if maybe, by chance the person arrested might be connected with some crime that was committed in the past (of which the police lack knowledge or sufficient current evidence).

These are very different reasons for undertaking these two activities. The first has a valid administrative purpose. The second serves no purpose other than to try to manufacture evidence where it does not exist. DNA testing may be valid after conviction (something which still bothers me) but prior to conviction it serves no purpose (unless involved in the actual case at hand). At least it serves no purpose if its only going to be held in stasis and destroyed if the defendant is not convicted. I suspect that this is not the way it will work in real life. The words "officer's good faith reliance on the administrator's error in processing early" just keep flashing thru my head.

And the author just blows off the possibility that law enforcement might manipulate the system in order to get DNA. Anyone who has dealt with the numerous pretext stops which occur daily and are ignored by our courts knows that law enforcement will use any tools given to them by the courts and legislatures to stretch the law to its limits to get the bad guy¹.



¹ As always I add the caveat that I do not blame the officers for this; I blame the courts which encourage this kind of activity by refusing to restrain it.

.