hope you Marylanders feel safer

constitutionally, that is.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/17/colorado.family.dna/index.html

Using relative's DNA cracks crime, but privacy questions raised
By Jim Spellman, CNN

Denver, Colorado (CNN) -- Using DNA to catch criminals has become common, but Denver police this year demonstrated how the practice can be taken to a new level: They tracked down a suspect not through his DNA, but through that of his brother.

....

But some privacy advocates are crying foul.

"Family members have done nothing wrong to get in the database," said Maryland defense attorney Stephen Mercer. "And this is an example of the web of suspicion of people who have committed offenses being widened to include their entire family."

Mercer has been fighting familial DNA searches since 2003. He was part of an effort that led to Maryland being the first state to outlaw familial DNA searches.

"People have a reasonable expectation of privacy of their DNA," he said. "It's a basic violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution"

Morrissey disagrees.

"I've yet to hear anyone explain how this is a violation of the U.S. Constitution," he said. "The bad guy abandoned the DNA at the crime scene. They have no expectation of privacy."

...

Take it to the Paranoid Forum, spanky.

dang!

Originally posted by zeeblebot
constitutionally, that is.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/17/colorado.family.dna/index.html

Using relative's DNA cracks crime, but privacy questions raised
By Jim Spellman, CNN

Denver, Colorado (CNN) -- Using DNA to catch criminals has become common, but Denver police this year demonstrated how the practice can be taken to a new level: T bandoned the DNA at the crime scene. They have no expectation of privacy."

...

I agree with Morrissey. As long as you don't get the evidence through illegal means, why on Earth should police NOT use every means at their disposal to obtain evidence in a case?

Banning familial searches is unbelievably stupid policy.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
constitutionally, that is.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/17/colorado.family.dna/index.html

Using relative's DNA cracks crime, but privacy questions raised
By Jim Spellman, CNN

Denver, Colorado (CNN) -- Using DNA to catch criminals has become common, but Denver police this year demonstrated how the practice can be taken to a new level: T ...[text shortened]... bandoned the DNA at the crime scene. They have no expectation of privacy."

...

They have no expectation of privacy, but I hope the brother's donation was voluntary. If it was compelled, I'd definitely be for banning that! If it was for some minor crime, I'd refuse anyway. If it were for rape, I'd drive the police over to the relative's house myself.