This seems really problematic to me, that they can take DNA on the mere suggestion that a person has committed a crime. It is an invasion of privacy, and it is all to easy for the police to have cases of "mistaken" identity.


I hope that it will be appealed.

This is only sort of related and kind of dumb at that, but why isn't submitting DNA regarded as a form of required self-incrimination in the cases where it does match? Is it because it's not testimony? (have we talked about this before?)

It also seems, as Vandal Squirrel gets at, that CSI, Forsensic Files and shows them kind of train criminals how to scientifically manipulate crime scenes. DNA as a crime related tool may not remain as useful. On the other hand, CSI and TV shows misrepresent the nature of most crimes, so who knows?

Assuming that these samples are saved in a database, which the OP doesn't really address:

Maybe the database could be required to be narrow in the information that it stores. Surely, there'd be levels of detail that could be useful for identifying people but not enough to create a true medical profile, right?

Maybe there's also a way to legally limit what the database can be used for in particular cases. I'm not sure that because you've been arrested for a particularly crime that your DNA should matched against all open crimes or stored forever. I might be okay with that post conviction, though.

Perhaps Congress and the states need to address how DNA evidence can be admissible in the criminal prosecution process, address it in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the state statutes.

For example, DNA evidence standing alone, without any corroborating evidence, IMHO, should not be admissible by the state (but should be admissible by the defendant at any time, before or after the trial), but should be able to be used as probable cause to find evidence. I do agree that the rules could use some 'tightening up' so as to let DNA evidence find its proper place in civil and criminal trials. Off the top of my head, those are a couple areas I believe the nation's legislators need to look at, but I doubt they will because the police will bitch and moan about being deprived of important tools for prosecuting criminals.

Is it addressed at all in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? I'm taking Crim Pro next summer session (as well as a law and forensic science class with Dr. Henry Lee in the fall), so I suppose I'll find out then...

In all seriousness, find out

I dunno... I'm studying for the Bar right now and as far as I know, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ain't on it... My state hasn't addressed it as far as I know, but I've never worked on a criminal case in my life, so it beats the hell out of me.

Wow.

You might die unidentified, but if any of your relatives commit a crime you could stop being a Jane Doe.

How do you feel about information taken from people in certain jobs, say working with kids and fingerprinting them or people who work in casinos, do you think that gives the government too much control?

Was the "wow" because I spelled "Forensic" so badly? Haha...

Yeah, it sounds like we have about the same criminal law experience; I figured FRCP was a shot in the dark, but like you I would assume there have to be rules for it somewhere.

I think you already know it wasn't spelling related, but the "wow" was because I assumed that you're talking about true crime TV forensic rock star Henry Lee.

(Actually, while I appreciate his awesomeness and all, I actually don't like watching him that much. I've never even seen his show. I probably wouldn't enjoy a class with him for a lot of reasons.)

At the very least, it should be an interesting class; it's being co-taught by him, the executive director of his institute, and a trial court judge who has a reputation as a pretty brilliant guy.

I'm not planning on going into criminal law, but it seemed like too good of an opportunity to pass up, and other people who took the class gave it great reviews.

Oh, I agree. And the three teacher combo sounds even better. It's got to be good to know even if you really don't ever use it in court.