[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by August

Then they get a warrant as part of the ongoing investigation like they would for any other piece of evidence. The article referenced in the OP was talking about obtaining DNA samples without regard for their necessity to the case at hand.

You must have missed my first post. I think the legislation sucks. It's a violation of the 4th amendment, in my opinion. I added this as my comment:

Originally Posted by MothBalls

My $0.02

If arrested for a felony a warrant should be obtained to take the DNA sample, and approved only if it is relevant to the case and required for a conviction. (4th amendment protection)

If you're not convicted the sample should be destroyed. If you are convicted, then it should be forwarded to the FBI for storage and used to see if your committed other crimes or for tracking potential future crimes.

I have no problems with storing this data for convicted felons. But I do have a problem with forcing it on someone who is just accused.

I don't think anyone should have to give up a sample without due process, meaning a search warrant ordered by a judge. It wouldn't surprise me to see this eventually brought to the Supreme Court as a violation of the 4th amendment, if it hasn't already.

This is the part that really bothers me:

"DNA is essentially, right now, the modern day fingerprint," said Wray. "We take fingerprints right at booking. I don't know why we can't take DNA."

Wray is an advocate of the proposed legislation, backed by state Sen. Sheila Harsdorf and state Rep. Ann Hraychuck. If passed as proposed, the bill would require samples be taken at the time of a felony arrest but before formal charges are filed.

I think it's a violation of unreasonable search and seizure protections given in the constitution.