2007-02-02 11:09:36 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
What I am saying is no matter what the crime would be ,they could take the sample.This way if a rapist got a Dui and committed a crime later on it could help police find the criminal
2007-02-02 11:20:19 · update #1
Yes! They take your finger prints, why not DNA?
2007-02-02 11:16:59 · answer #1 · answered by madjer21755 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One is not arrested for no reason -- there *has* to be probable cause.
So, why are fingerprints taken at the time of arrest? To learn or comfirm the identity of the person being arrested by comparing the prints to those in a database of known criminals. Courts have held that the taking of fingerprints is a reasonable action on the part of law enforcement.
Fingerprints at a crime scene can indicate who was there. The same applies with DNA, only with more certainty. DNA can't be smudged...DNA doesn't have to be on nice, smooth surfaces...with DNA, it doesn't matter if the criminal wears gloves, and DNA eliminates more people than it convicts - so if you're innocent you should be glad to give up your DNA.
Bottom line...there's no reason that DNA should *not* be taken at the time of arrest.
2007-02-02 20:43:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can't unless it is pertenant to the crime committed at the time of arrest.
I do like your thought, but you have to look at the other side - in collecting DNA from every person arrested, the police (and government) could also track people, as well as gather personal, private medical info from the sample taken in.
2007-02-02 20:31:35 · answer #3 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes i think everyone should provide a DNA sample, it would speed up the arrest time to catch criminals and save time money and resources which could be put to better uses.
2007-02-02 22:08:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think not. I believe that is a violation of one's rights under the 4th amendment. Do not submit to DNA testing without a court order.
It has become common practice for people who are convicted of felonies to have DNA testing done, but not for everyone arrested.
2007-02-02 23:14:38 · answer #5 · answered by huduuluv 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the crime. For something minor...no. For something where DNA could be considered and needed as evidence, yes.
2007-02-02 19:14:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should be permitted... I'm not sure of the current law.
I know that when I was in the Navy they took DNA samples in 1990... for identification purposes in case of death... but I've since learned that it goes into a national database.
2007-02-02 19:56:30 · answer #7 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Indiana just put into place a statute that allows law enforcement to collect DNA from all adult felons who are on probation on or after January 1, 2007. (I think it went into effect that day.)
I think that requiring it of felons only, and not those guilty of misdemeanors, is a good idea. Felons have already shown that they are willing to commit serious offenses.
2007-02-02 19:46:30 · answer #8 · answered by Mama Pastafarian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you refuse, they can always get a warrant or court order based on probable cause. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying that's what the law allows.
2007-02-02 19:12:10 · answer #9 · answered by beez 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if the police secure a search warrant.
2007-02-02 19:13:34 · answer #10 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋