Site Meter

Should We All Be in the National DNA Database?

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Adam says:

    Today, they look at a small number of codons. But what happens to the raw material? Is it stored? Could it be re-tested at a higher intrusiveness later? What about a later change in what is tested and stored. (There are a variety of slippery slope arguments.)

    I also think that your person is what is being searched, and there is a strong 4th ammendment argument against this.

  2. Novus Diem says:

    Concurring Opinions: Should We All Be in the National DNA Database?

    This relates to my post a few weeks back about storing DNA collected from people who have been arrested. I still agree with myself, but I don’t like the way this got in. Solove talks about the same thing I thought when I read the WaPo articl…

  3. VAWA Amendment Calls for Compulsory DNA Samples

    Two Republican senators are pushing an amendment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that wou…

  4. LawStudent says:

    You write “Nevertheless, I am very wary of the power the database gives the government. Since we leave trails of our DNA wherever we go, it might be possible to link particular people to particular places.” As you well know, minor enhancment of what is in plain view does not constitute a 4th amendment search. Dow Chemical. The beeper cases also suggest that the police can use a beeper to monitor one’s movements while in public, but not in private places such as the home. Knotts; Karo. Couldn’t an analogy be made between trails of DNA and a beeper? Presumably, whatever technology the government is using to “link particular people to particular places” would not be able to penetrate the home. Therefore, under existing precedent, such a development would not constitute a 4th Amendment search because there would be no reasonable expectation of privacy under Katz and the plain view doctrine. Am I correct that the 4th Amendment wouldn’t present any series bar to the police were they to use DNA trails to “link people to particular places”?

    This, of course, is a separate question of whether existing precedent SHOULD be reconsidered. I write this tentatively, however, because I’m not sure I fully understand this area of law. Would love to hear your comments Professor Solove.

  5. yesenia pantoja says:

    A LOW SHOULD BE PASS,DNA FOR EVRYONE AT BIRTH TO BE TAKE,AND NO KIDS ON SCHOOL WITHOUT DNA PROOF,JUST LIKE VACCINATIONS,EVRYONE ON GENERAL SAME TO GET YOUR LICENSE,AND FOR RECIDENCE AND PASSAPORT,TO GET A JOB COLLEGE I MEAN EVERYONE NO EXEPTION ON THE 50 STATES,IF THIS IS DONE ,ALOTS MORE CRIMES COULD BE SOLVE AND MORE BODIES IDENTIFIED,MORE MISSING KIDS COULD BE FOUND AND A WILL BE MORE LIKELY A MATCH ON CRIMES WILL BE FOUND,THE LAW SHOULD BE DONE PEOPLE LIKE IT OR NOT ALL EQUALY CRIMINAL OR NOT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image