# Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest



## GAP

For some reason I can't find the security forum for this....please move for me if this does not suit.....

Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest
 By Douglas Quan, Postmedia News May 27, 2013
Article Link

"Book 'em" could carry a whole new meaning at police stations in Canada if lawmakers are swayed to make a controversial change to the Criminal Code.

A growing number of law enforcement representatives are calling for new powers to collect DNA from criminal suspects at the time of their arrest, not just upon their conviction.

They say the law already allows authorities to get fingerprints and photographs when someone is taken into custody. "In the name of community safety, let's address this issue. I think it's a no-brainer," said Paul Wozney, president of the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, which has been trying to drum up support for the idea through media interviews and appeals to members of Parliament.

Proponents say allowing DNA collection upon arrest would allow police to identify repeat offenders sooner. Years can pass before a trial is held.

They also point out that convicted offenders who are ordered by a judge to submit a DNA sample - but who are not required to serve jail time - often won't show up to give that sample.

Wozney said police are not looking to get DNA samples from everyone who is arrested, just those who are arrested for more serious crimes, such as murder, kidnapping, robbery, arson and break-and-enter. And if a suspect ends up being found not guilty, the DNA sample would be destroyed.
More on link


----------



## cupper

It has created some challenges south of the border, and was deliberated earlier this year by the Supreme Court.

*Supreme Court Debate Continues: DNA samples at time of arrest?*

http://ivn.us/independent-americans/2013/03/04/supreme-court-debate-continues-dna-samples-at-time-of-arrest/



> “I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.
> 
> The response came in on Tuesday, a reaction to the US Supreme Court’s current debate over whether or not police officers can take DNA samples from suspects they’ve arrested.
> 
> Maryland v. King No. 12-207, the case open before the court today was built from a 2009 event in Wicomico County, MD. DNA was obtained from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after he was incarcerated on assault charges. After running his DNA through the system, King’s sample also matched evidence collected from a 2003 rape. He was subsequently convicted of that crime.
> 
> Last April, Maryland’s Court of Appeals ruled against authorizing DNA collection those arrested –but not yet convicted. According to the new state law, this preemptive practice violates the rights the 4th Amendment guarantees – probable cause.
> 
> Justice Alito argues it’s worth the compromise: “This is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.”
> 
> But, Alito’s leanings are not indicative of how the court will rule. For Justice Antonin Scalia this is not so cut-and-dried. “I’ll bet you if you conducted a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you’d get more convictions, too. That proves absolutely nothing.”
> 
> Scalia spoke in the context of hearing that Maryland had obtained 42 convictions based on DNA from people arrested there.
> Collecting DNA from people convicted of crimes is not the issue in today’s case. The question is, rather, whether sampling DNA before trail infringes on US constitutional rights.
> 
> Chief justice, Elena Kagan, appeared apprehensive of going too far, too fast. “Why don’t we do this for everybody who comes in for a driver’s license because it’s very effective?” she asked hypothetically.
> 
> There must be legal limits saying an arrest would not justify the search of an individual’s home for “possible evidence of an unrelated crime.”
> 
> Practically speaking, the major question the court is working to answer is one of technology. Is DNA this century’s fingerprint?
> 
> Several justices seemed interested in using DNA evidence to assist America’s judges in bail sentencing. For now, they were told lab turnaround times are too long to make that a deciding factor.



Another aspect which is working it's way through the lower levels is the retention of DNA samples after an acquittal.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Nope, nada, no way and hell no way.

Upon a conviction I have no issues, but not on arrest.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Nope, nada, no way and hell no way.
> 
> Upon a conviction I have no issues, but not on arrest.



Why??..............we take fingerprints and a picture upon arrest.  DNA is just an easier way to ID without mistakes.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Law enforcement pushes for power to swab for DNA on arrest

If true, the only correct response is "Fvck off, pigs" *.

* "A Fish Called Wanda."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Well that was certainly deep and enlightning.

So try and come up with an answer to my "why not?"


----------



## dapaterson

The question for any surrender of freedom must be "Why?", not "Why not"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

That's easy,..........100% certain of identity.
Good for public safety and certainly good for those who are worried about false accusations against them.



nothing to hide= nothing to fear


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

..and I certainly don't see it as a "surrender of freedoms".  it's an identification tool, nothing more, nothing less.

...and certainly a lot less invasive than getting fingerprinted. [especially if you wish to resist the process]


----------



## 2 Cdo

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Why??..............we take fingerprints and a picture upon arrest.  DNA is just an easier way to ID without mistakes.



If I provide picture ID on arrest and you take my fingerprints why do you need DNA?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Pictures and fingerprints can be changed/altered.............your DNA can't.

Heck, we could get rid of those two things so in sementics you would be gaining 'freedom' dapaterson.


----------



## cupper

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> That's easy,..........100% certain of identity.
> Good for public safety and certainly good for those who are worried about false accusations against them.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing to hide= nothing to fear



Nothing is every 100% certain.

Personally I don't have a problem with the idea, but it does raise a lot of legal issues which will take up a lot of court time.


----------



## cupper

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Pictures and fingerprints can be changed/altered.............your DNA can't.
> 
> Heck, we could get rid of those two things so in sementics you would be gaining 'freedom' dapaterson.



No, DNA can't be altered, but the sequencing can be screwed up. And the time frame to do the testing may result in significant delays. And by now creating a larger demand on lab time, it will only clog the system up worse.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Pictures and fingerprints can be changed/altered.............your DNA can't.
> 
> Heck, we could get rid of those two things so in sementics you would be gaining 'freedom' dapaterson.



Like I said Bruce, if convicted of a violent crime no problem. Arrested for something minor, forget it.


----------



## Container

The article is terribly written.

In the Criminal Code there is a section that defines "primary" and "secondary" offences- these are the only offences that somebody can have DNA taken and stored on the databank for. There is significant delay and issue getting the court ordered samples onto the databank because we cant get the samples once the person leaves the court room. Despite authority to.

They are looking for authority to get the swab done when the person is arrested for the primary offence at the time they are arrested and charged- rather than after conviction. Its actually relatively easy to remove things from the bank.

It isnt public intoxication or speeding: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nddb-bndg/form/ddo-did-eng.htm

Im of two minds on the matter- but if it was reserved specifically for primary- compulsory offences than maybe....BUT....they need to add more funding to the labs for this (and we just closed three of our six) because the backlog is attrocious.


----------



## Container

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Like I said Bruce, if convicted of a violent crime no problem. Arrested for something minor, forget it.



What if arrested/charged for a violent crime (like primary compulsory from the link)?

Which is the actual suggestion?


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> That's easy,..........100% certain of identity.
> Good for public safety and certainly good for those who are worried about false accusations against them.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing to hide= nothing to fear



Taking DNA on arrest does not assist in identifying the individual's identity unless you already have their DNA in a database. 

All that taking a person's DNA on arrest does is create evidence which can be used against the individual vis a vis other unsolved crimes where DNA has been left behind or for future crimes where the individual may leave trace DNA evidence. 

If you want to make it real simple, Bruce then change the laws so that every child born in Canada has its DNA taken and every person who crosses our border has to give a DNA sample. That way we'll have a 100% data base.
 :sarcasm:

I don't yet wear a tinfoil hat nor have I joined the freemen on the land -- but if Vic Toews and the Chiefs of Police cabal keep at it ... 

op:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FJAG said:
			
		

> Taking DNA on arrest does not assist in identifying the individual's identity unless you already have their DNA in a database.
> 
> All that taking a person's DNA on arrest does is create evidence which can be used against the individual vis a vis other unsolved crimes where DNA has been left behind or for future crimes where the individual may leave trace DNA evidence.



Gee, maybe I'm just a dumb Guard, but that sounds a heck of a lot like the job fingerprints have been doing for years to me.


----------



## Dissident

I'm with FJAG and dapaterson on this.

You should need a warrant or a convinction in order to get DNA samples, IMHO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

No one has explained why though.

I MUST take your fingerprints and picture when you pass through my doors even if it involves using force.  I can get a sample of DNA a whole lot easier and, the backlog notwithstanding as that's just a money problem, it will be a lot more useful to law enforcement folks in the future.


----------



## MeanJean

I am with Bruce Monkhouse on this one.

If you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to worry about.  It is another form of identification and it is about time that the laws catch up with technology.  What is the moral/ethical difference between taking fingerprints or taking DNA?  

Some crimes are more prone to leaving DNA behind and if one of those crimes happened to my daughter and the bastard who commited it was not convicted but could have been if a DNA sample was taken. What if the assailant was unknown but his DNA was on file?  I would like to see justice served.  It is another tool to allow the police to do their job.


----------



## Container

Like I said- Im on the fence. I do fail to see how a buccal swab is a gigantic thing when a guy is sitting in cells for kidnapping or murder. 

Could one of you actually articulate the rights intrusion? I dont think the need is articulated well but I also dont understand the strong reaction.

We use fingerprints against people before they are convicted- and their is a procedure in place for dealing with them if the arent convicted. I m missing something?

ALSO- currently it takes a judge rather than a justice of the peace to sign a DNA warrant. Its a huge headache- so I would suggest that given the courts feelings on the gravitas of DNA I dont see this happening.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I would be okay with having my DNA taken since I haven't committed any crimes, don't plan to and if I do commit one then I'll deserve to be caught.
If it helps put away violent criminals (who seem to constantly find loop holes in the law) then for me it's a solid argument.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> nothing to hide= nothing to fear



I used to think this way 100% but after dealing with the police who tried this against me then treated me like a criminal after exercising my rights (on the advice of multiple police officers) I'm not so supportive of the idea.  
"Cops don't talk to cops, the first thing we do if accused of anything is get a lawyer" is what my friend told me.

Having nothing to hide doesn't mean your life can't be turned upside down and cost you thousands of dollars for a lawyer if you're not smart.  

Didn't the Ottawa police just have to apologize to some guys who they falsely accused of defacing the Arrow in Ottawa?  Resulting in months and months of online character assassination and harassment. They turned themselves in because they had nothing to hide.


----------



## ArmyRick

I am very pro cop, I have several friends who are OPP and some relatives on other forces. I have to say, there should be a warrant or upon conviction reason for swabbing for DNA.

I would also argue that depending upon the conviction as well (Violent crimes, sex crimes, etc). Taking DNA swab from someone for disturbing the peace who be a little excessive. 

Even if we did swab for DNA for whatever reason, it is not going to stop a single murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. It may only be helpful IF the suspect left DNA behind at the crime scene and if he/she is caught. 

I do have issues with giving police too many powers. An OPP friend of mine (no names) who has had to assist MNR and CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) with arrest for some really STUPID and petty law breaking, has convinced me that we need better and more thoroughly worded laws in Canada (and Ontario) instead of carte blanche powers for law enforcement. BTW, my friend was almost sick for having to arrest the person for what they did, it was that trivial.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

OZ.......you are correct, it can happen.

...and those that abuse their legally-enabled power should be charged and shown the door,..full stop.
Having said that, anyone involved in law enforcement usually has allegations against them all the time, it's another red herring dirtbags like to toss out there.

Amanda Bynes anyone??


----------



## Remius

"Nothing to hide=nothing to fear"

This can be used to violate just about every right guaranteed to us.  With that logic a police officer could just walk into my house for no reason, even if I'm not there.  Or how about take my son in for questioning about something without my knowledge or permission?  Or how about randomn strip searches while I take a walk for no reason?  Nothing to hide=nothing to fear right?  What's the problem being filmed, providing written statements or answering questions without a lawyer if I've got nothing to hide?

I really hate that argument.

Unfortunately we are going down a slippery slope.  

I'm all for DNA samples as a requirement for conviction.  But upon arrest?

I suppose DNA testing could be taken, verified against whatever database might exist but if the subject is found not guilty i would propose that all DNA test, references to or whatever be destroyed and wiped from whatever database there is.  There is no reason to keep any of that on file for any reason in that case.

I think that is a suitable compromise.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Even if we did swab for DNA for whatever reason, it is not going to stop a single murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. It may only be helpful IF the suspect left DNA behind at the crime scene and if he/she is caught.




http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2012/09/10/why_keep_convicted_killer_russell_williams_dna_testing_dates_secret.html
If results of the first two DNA tests were processed in time and revealed a match, they may have prompted officers to look more closely at people the two victims had in common. That just might have led them to Williams before he killed again.


So, any investigator may have put 2 and 2 together and asked Williams for a swab which he could have refused, if however, he had been arrested at some point and was in the database...............

There's that voice telling me again I'm just a dumb Guard and fingerprints and pictures are all we'll ever, ever need. :facepalm:


----------



## Nemo888

I'm a bit of a libertarian. Upon arrest could lead to abuse, but upon being charged with a crime it makes sense. Keeping it on file is another thorny issue. What if the citizen is found not guilty of the crime for instance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Then it sits harmlessly in the same hard drive that your picture and fingerprints sit in now.


----------



## ArmyRick

Bruce, 

Your getting really defensive, I'll put it to this way. Most Canadians probably don't want this and I agree nothing to hide = nothing to fear is a REALLY weak argument. Seriously lacking in any substance for justifying more police powers.

A big point I tried to drive home, is we need BETTER written laws. 

As for the other example about Williams, notice the words "may have" and "If"....Sorry pal, hind sight is 20-20. The argument could easily go both ways.


----------



## Remius

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Then it sits harmlessly in the same hard drive that your picture and fingerprints sit in now.



Except that it shouldn't.

On the flip side though, it could be used to exonerate people falsely accused and convicted of crimes.

Slippery slope.

If the goal is to help police then why not swab everyone at birth?  Yeah, didn't think so.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yup, nothing is 100% certain.

Crantor,...didn't you ever do a fingerprint thing in Grade school?  I did..............


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I guess I should have been more specific with my "nothing to hide" comment,......I had forgotten the built-in military paranoia factor.

That wasn't an all inclusive statement that everything is now on the table,.....for gawd's sake, we are talking about a more foolproof way of identifying people, good, bad, dead, etc.  Nothing more nothing less...........

If a cop came to my house and asked to submit a DNA sample because they were trying to eliminate suspects from my neighbourhood so they could use the resources more efficiently to maybe find someone's missing child then I offer it up in a heartbeat,....why??......because "nothing to hide".



EDIT: ..and ArmyRick, I could not agree more with you that lots of laws need to be rewritten.  But look how folks scream, yell and shout when they are....


----------



## dapaterson

Toronto's dirty cops, who rolled dealers and stole money, walked because of the blue line.

They are not the majority of cops.  (Far from it).  But there are enough out there that I'd rather not entrust any information to them about me at all, if I can avoid it.

(Similar argument going ot the Supreme Court next month to keep personal information away from another band of hoods - public service unions).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Toronto's dirty cops, who rolled dealers and stole money, walked because of the blue line.
> 
> They are not the majority of cops.  (Far from it).  But there are enough out there that I'd rather not entrust any information to them about me at all, if I can avoid it.
> 
> (Similar argument going ot the Supreme Court next month to keep personal information away from another band of hoods - public service unions).


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, nothing is 100% certain.
> 
> Crantor,...didn't you ever do a fingerprint thing in Grade school?  I did..............



Me too.  I've had my kids finger printed and if I could I'd put a tracking bug in them until they're 18.

Honestly I've had my trust in the police shaken but I think I have enough faith in them to offer up my DNA to go on file.

A compromise may be this DNA swabbing depending on the type of crime someone is being arrested for.  

If swabbing someone leads to them being convicted for unsolved rapes or murders from years ago I would be really happy about that.  
If it causes someones life to be ruined due to police mistakes or screw ups then not so much.
Something like this may make the police's life easier in a way but they would also have to be extra vigilant with how it's used.


----------



## Remius

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, nothing is 100% certain.
> 
> Crantor,...didn't you ever do a fingerprint thing in Grade school?  I did..............



Actually no I didn't.  But not all databases for ID purposes can be used.  For example in the CF we all pretty much gave fingerprints for ID purposes but that database cannot be used by police to identify anyone for the puposes of investigating crimes.  Or at least that was what was explained to me.

I see you point about helping eliminate suspects (I hate to think that I would even be a suspect to begin with without credible reason).  But I would want that info stricken after.  They have no reason to keep it.

Like the gun registry, nothing to hide right?  Or an employer wanting to look at your facebook page you turning over your access to them (I know not the same but it is teh same justification). 

If honest citizens have nothing to hide or fear they certainly should not have to justify their actions.  If they choose to cooperate or not.  It's their choice.

I support law enforcement.  But I've been burned or at least felt that way (and I was just a witness) and have seen some of my subordinates be put through the ringer as well, just for exercising their rights.  But I stil support them.  But my support has limits when certain things can violate the basic tenants of our society. 

History has shown that some databases and information gathering can be abused.  Not saying that we are there but we shouldn't allow it to get there either.

Bruce, you are making compelling arguments but it is from an LEO perspective not from a citizen's rights perspective. 

There are arguments tobe made for both which is likely why this is contenscious.


----------



## J.J

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Toronto's dirty cops, who rolled dealers and stole money, walked because of the blue line.
> 
> They are not the majority of cops.  (Far from it).  But there are enough out there that I'd rather not entrust any information to them about me at all, if I can avoid it.
> 
> (Similar argument going ot the Supreme Court next month to keep personal information away from another band of hoods - public service unions).



 :bla-bla:

You really don't know what your talking about


----------



## Remius

WR said:
			
		

> :bla-bla:
> 
> You really don't know what your talking about



How is what dataperson said trolling?


----------



## J.J

Crantor said:
			
		

> How is what dataperson said trolling?



How is that comment related to the discussion at hand other than to be inflammatory? The police were never accused of setting anyone up, there were never any leo interference to stop the prosecution. It was actually the contrary, some of the accused were arrested for breach of recogs, resist arrest etc, placed under surveillance etc. How does discussing different methods of identification of persons under arrest related to drug cops stealing/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Crantor said:
			
		

> Like the gun registry, nothing to hide right?



I would like to, but I can't argue that one..........................I'm a very "gun control guy" but I'm the first to tell others that gun owners got screwed and who can blame them for not wanting to cooperate.


----------



## Container

Okay- clearly nobody looked at my link about the types of offences that DNA is being sought for. No one is being swabbed for disturbing the peace. There is a specific series of offences- in the link above.

There is no authority to seize DNA outside of those offences. 

Rather than this argument- because its seems backwards to me, as a guy who worked IN forensics. Specifically with DNA and fingerprints.

The conversation should be to remove the discretion on violent offences. If you are convicted of a crime that involves injury to another person you should have your DNA on the databank. 

In my experience, the DNA databank backlog is DNA that was located at property crimes- when you get a hit it gives you a series of old break and enters.

When I went through the Canadian Police College for Forensics the numbers of crimes solved by the Crime Scene Index was incredibly low. Like I was shocked at the cost compared to the results. They defended it by saying as the amount of offenders with DNA on the databank goes up the better the results will be.

To my knowledge there hasn't been a dramatic increase. This is not because we dont have what the Chiefs are proposing- it is because of the cumbersome process of getting the DNA onto the databank in the first place along with the judges choosing to not order the DNA taken- by either discretion or omission.

These issues need to be addressed before we reinvent the wheel.

In my experience whenever an association of police chiefs recommends something I can be counted on to disagree.


----------



## Edward Campbell

At the risk of being inflammatory: the state, the government, including police and the national security apparatus, always has too much power, and the sovereign individual - the most important component of the nation state - always has too little. Information is power. 

The state is constantly trying to intrude upon our fundamental rights - and I regard privacy as a fundamental right (see US, Warren & Brandeis, 1890) - and we should, as a mater of principle, be making access to information more and more and more difficult, even at the (very real) risk of making it easier for sociopathic serial killers, pedophiles and armed drug dealers to go about their awful business unmolested with less effective police interference. 

I, personally, as a long time, dues paying Conservative Party member, think the "law and order" planks of the party's platform are ill considered and actually pose a real, measurable threat to _liberty_. I understand we, the CPC, are appealing to a certain segment of society and I understand that we need to keep them "onside." But I opposed mandatory minimum sentences - I think we lock up far too many people for far too long, the (most? just some?) data, from other countries, seems to support me - and I oppose this, too.

I agree that when one is convicted of certain offences - Container explained that there are differences between them - one loses many rights, and I have no problem with (almost) anything Bruce _et al_ do to them. I also oppose convicts being allowed to vote, by the way (it just proves that the Charter was sloppily drafted, ALL written constitutions are deeply flawed that way). But until one is convicted one is innocent and the police ought to be very limited in what they can do to us.

More government is always worse government.


----------



## GAP

> More government is always worse government



But, but....ER....they are there to help....honest....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Edward,...............IMO, you're still missing the point.

This changes nothing except makes it more foolproof to identify people...............including innocents who just want to carry on.

Not months of someone being suspected because an eyewitness seemed to recall a thirsty looking older gentleman with grey hair, glasses and a cane speeding towards an establishment on the corner of Bay and Albert about the time of the incident. :-*

One swab,...boom,....off ya' go....


----------



## JorgSlice

Container said:
			
		

> Okay- clearly nobody looked at my link about the types of offences that DNA is being sought for. No one is being swabbed for disturbing the peace. There is a specific series of offences- in the link above.
> 
> There is no authority to seize DNA outside of those offences.
> 
> Rather than this argument- because its seems backwards to me, as a guy who worked IN forensics. Specifically with DNA and fingerprints.
> 
> The conversation should be to remove the discretion on violent offences. If you are convicted of a crime that involves injury to another person you should have your DNA on the databank.
> 
> In my experience, the DNA databank backlog is DNA that was located at property crimes- when you get a hit it gives you a series of old break and enters.
> 
> When I went through the Canadian Police College for Forensics the numbers of crimes solved by the Crime Scene Index was incredibly low. Like I was shocked at the cost compared to the results. They defended it by saying as the amount of offenders with DNA on the databank goes up the better the results will be.
> 
> To my knowledge there hasn't been a dramatic increase. This is not because we dont have what the Chiefs are proposing- it is because of the cumbersome process of getting the DNA onto the databank in the first place along with the judges choosing to not order the DNA taken- by either discretion or omission.
> 
> These issues need to be addressed before we reinvent the wheel.
> 
> In my experience whenever an association of police chiefs recommends something I can be counted on to disagree.



This.

 :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Edward,...............IMO, you're still missing the point.
> ...
> One swab,...boom,....off ya' go....




But where does my swab go? If it is into the state's databases then I remain unalterably opposed. If I am convicted of one of those serious crimes - not jay-walking or shop-lifting - then by all means keep my data; I have forfeited some rights by breaking my part of the _social contract_ but until I am a convicted felon then the less you - as a servant of the state - know about me the safer I am. And that's what you and all LEOs are aiming to do, isn't it: keeping me safe?


----------



## dapaterson

Honest people aren't the problem.  It's the criminals.

Which is the same issue with police - honest ones (the overwhelming majority) aren't the problem.  It's the criminals.

I'm certain that the chiefs of police who support this will agree to start by swabbing all their officers, right?



...crickets...


----------



## Container

Your swab becomes associated with a number is entered in to a Databank- where a profile is generated and the swab is gone. Every once in a while that profile is compared against the unknowns in the databank.

There is actually nothing stopping them from removing that profile if you are found not guilty. It would be very easy- IF the law was set up that if you were not convicted they had to delete your profile (and the jeopardy being the police would lose any charges generated down the line if the old profile wasnt removed) it doesnt seem so bad to me. Its the matter of a delete key.

See the profile itself doesnt actually convict you of anything. What it does is when there is a hit- a police officer has to apply for a Warrant to take another sample to compare directly to the crime scene sample. You cannot be convicted based off a databank hit- its merely grounds to look closer. If the judge isnt convinced that the crime scene DNA is actually evidence of a crime, like its just there and not really of note, he will not issue the warrant and youre done.

There is alot of oversight in DNA. The only real argument is- if you have been accused of a crime, and charged under reasonable and probable grounds. Do you deserve to have your DNA compared?


----------



## Container

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Honest people aren't the problem.  It's the criminals.
> 
> Which is the same issue with police - honest ones (the overwhelming majority) aren't the problem.  It's the criminals.
> 
> I'm certain that the chiefs of police who support this will agree to start by swabbing all their officers, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...crickets...



My DNA and my fingerprints are on the databank. I have no issues with this. For everyone else- the fingerprints of every police officer are on the databank.

I wouldnt mind if DNA was as well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Here's mine...*licks the screen*


----------



## dapaterson

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Here's mine...*licks the screen*









... but you're sexier than Keith Richards ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> but until I am a convicted felon then the less you - as a servant of the state - know about me the safer I am. And that's what you and all LEOs are aiming to do, isn't it: keeping me safe?



But you have a credit card, interac, internet forums and, holy crap, a passport,.......how the hell can we keep you safe?? :sarcasm:

I personally would like to be tracked down if by chance I should go missing.................or at least that my kids will know those are my remains in the acid vat,.....your milage may vary.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... but you're sexier than Keith Richards ...



Heck,...even you are sexier than Keith.


----------



## Container

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, nothing is 100% certain.
> 
> Crantor,...didn't you ever do a fingerprint thing in Grade school?  I did..............



Interestingly enough- the child fingerprinting initiatives go into a different databank with assurances that it will never be accessed for criminal search purposes.


----------



## Remius

Container said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough- the child fingerprinting initiatives go into a different databank with assurances that it will never be accessed for criminal search purposes.



That I have no issues with.  Just like the CF fingerprint databank.


----------



## captloadie

So, when the MPs are investigating an incident and they find fingerprints, they aren't allowed to run them against the CF database? Interesting . . .


----------



## Remius

captloadie said:
			
		

> So, when the MPs are investigating an incident and they find fingerprints, they aren't allowed to run them against the CF database? Interesting . . .



Not the database that is used for ID.  AFAIK.  I took a fingerprinting course when I was a recruiter and prints taken for that purpose much like the prints required for your ID go into a different database.  That database cannot be accessed for criminal investigations (my understanding is that it can be used to identify victims though).  

I don't want to get too far out of my lanes though, which I am.  I'm relaying what I was taught and it was a few years ago. So how current that info is would be a guess at best.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The problem I have with all this, is that I can see the number of arrests going up, on simple things, just so they can increase their data bank.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

recceguy said:
			
		

> The problem I have with all this, is that I can see the number of arrests going up, on simple things, just so they can increase their data bank.



So you're assumpting that they do that now just for the fingerprint data base?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So you're assumpting that they do that now just for the fingerprint data base?



See. I knew it was a mistake to even try offer an opinion.

And we know already where I stand on LE, don't we Bruce.

I'm out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Pout if you wish, but you threw the fastball...............since LE already identify, and keep records, of those arrested your statement makes little sense in the context.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Pout if you wish, but you threw the fastball...............since LE already identify, and keep records, of those arrested your statement makes little sense in the context.



Just because you shout everyone down doesn't mean you win the arguement.

Later.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I'm nowhere near passing the bar, but I would like to know if Sections 8, 11 ,and 13 would have to be applied to this new procedure for it to be credible.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just because you shout everyone down doesn't mean you win the arguement.
> 
> Later.



I don't believe I'm shouting anyone down,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I've been waiting for someone to explain to me, without the 'sky is falling' hyperbole, to explain how this changes ANYTHING from what the country has been doing for over 100 years in reference to verifying identity.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I don't believe I'm shouting anyone down,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I've been waiting for someone to explain to me, without the 'sky is falling' hyperbole, to explain how this changes ANYTHING from what the country has been doing for over 100 years in reference to verifying identity.




You're right, Bruce, it's been about 100 years since the state began to intrude deeper and deeper into our lives ... none of the measures is, by itself, disastrous or even very dangerous, but there are so many of them and in their aggregation they represent a quite fundamental change in the nature of the state vs. the citizen. Of course we're still "free," and, of course, people like you are protecting us from harm, but there are costs: we pay for our "protection." In 1775 Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It was true then and it still is. 

I know I'm being dogmatic but I think the issue of fundamental rights, including privacy, does trump public safety. I also recognize the essential contradiction in my own, personal, desire to be safe from harm and my theoretical insistence on greater "liberty."


----------



## kratz

I see no harm in auguring for privacy and limits on police powers. I'm glad E.R. Campbell has articulated the points so well. Instead of blindly agreeing more data collection = safer, it is smart in my opinion to question the need to allow for those increased powers. The value in this discussion is making people aware there is another edge of privacy being surrendered for what measured amount of gain?


----------



## Container

recceguy said:
			
		

> The problem I have with all this, is that I can see the number of arrests going up, on simple things, just so they can increase their data bank.



I could see this if it was a blanket suggestion- but the items on the "primary" offences list require victims- how would we inflate the databank without a corresponding increase in violent crime?


----------



## Jacky Tar

My concern is not so much the issue of collecting the information, be it photo, fingerprints, swab, whatever, but that this then becomes yet more data stored about me, available to the government's various departments. If the CF identification fingerprint database is indeed distinct and separate then that comes as something of a shock to me, frankly. Historically, information collected by a government for one purpose generally gets spread out for other purpose; the perception being that the government owns this information. They do NOT. They are custodians of information that belongs to the individual citizens and lawful residents of the country.

The issue is the government's track record on maintaining security of information. Too many government systems have been hacked and data stolen out of them fo rme to feel comfortable with the idea of DNA information being on file along with my photo and fingerprints.

And yes, before anyone brings up the internet again, I have been known to deliberately use throw-away accounts for website registrations, particularly corporate ones.


----------



## The_Falcon

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> The issue is the government's track record on maintaining security of information. Too many government systems have been hacked and data stolen out of them fo rme to feel comfortable with the idea of DNA information being on file along with my photo and fingerprints.



I was going to post something about this, but you beat me too it.  There is no such thing as a secure system, either outsiders find ways in, or insiders sell out the information.  

As well the idea that the data can be "deleted".  How many times have people been warned on this site that the internet is forever?  Toronto Police in particular where admonished in several reports about their reluctance and in some instances down right obstructionist attitude when people have tried getting their finger prints removed off police databases.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Container said:
			
		

> I could see this if it was a blanket suggestion- but the items on the "primary" offences list require victims- how would we inflate the databank without a corresponding increase in violent crime?



I didn't consider that. I stand corrected on that point.


----------



## cupper

OK lets look at it this way. 

As was previously pointed out, DNA is not a tool used specifically to confirm a person's identity, but rather an investigative tool to confirm or eliminate a person as a suspect.

If my understanding is correct, when people come into your realm, they have already been fingerprinted, photographed, and possibly swabbed.

However, someone who has never been previously arrested potentially could not be positively ID'd with 100% certainty because they do not have fingerprints in some government data bank. And since there would be no reason to have been swabbed for DNA, this would not provide an alternate means of ID confirmation. The best it could do is tie the person to the crime if such evidence existed to compare the fingerprints and DNA sample to.

So, when you take your prints, photos and swabs when the person above comes into your realm, the best you can assume is that the person in your presence is the person who was originally arrested.

Interesting point, the first and only time I have ever been fingerprinted was when I was being processed for permanent residence status in the US. There are no copies of my fingerprints on record in Canada (that I am aware of anyway :Tin-Foil-Hat: )


----------



## garb811

captloadie said:
			
		

> So, when the MPs are investigating an incident and they find fingerprints, they aren't allowed to run them against the CF database? Interesting . . .





			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> If the CF identification fingerprint database is indeed distinct and separate then that comes as something of a shock to me, frankly.


It is indeed distinct and separate and is not accessible for law enforcement purposes, short of a warrant of course.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The problem I have with all this, is that I can see the number of arrests going up, on simple things, just so they can increase their data bank.


Further to the previous points about this, if you are falsely arrested without RPG to simply to fill up the databank, you have recourse to the courts and a pretty big payday coming your way.


----------



## The_Falcon

garb811 said:
			
		

> Further to the previous points about this, if you are falsely arrested without RPG to simply to fill up the databank, *you have recourse to the courts and a pretty big payday coming your way.*



Only if you can actually afford a lawyer, or can find one willing to work on a contingency.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Seems to me to be one more way to make mounting a fair and vigorous defence harder and harder.  Just gob on this stick mate, purely to make it easier to nail the  lid down on you, there's a good lad.


----------



## dapaterson

To balance things out, I figure we can abandon the buccal swabs and move to rectal swabs.  I'm thinking (with few exceptions) police officers will be quite reticent to take them...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Seems to me to be one more way to make mounting a fair and vigorous defence harder and harder.  Just gob on this stick mate, purely to make it easier to nail the  lid down on you, there's a good lad.



Whereas I would think, since I know I didn't do this, mounting my "fair defence" just got a whole lot easier..........


----------



## Kat Stevens

Yup, valid, good point.  Ten years from now they'll be asking for RFID trackers for random traffic stops, y'know, just to better protect us.


----------



## Nemo888

This is a rather old argument that deals ultimately with the founding principles of democracy.  "For I wish neither to rule nor be ruled, and on that condition I stand apart from the rule, on condition that I will not be ruled by any of you, " (Herodotus almost 2500 years ago)

Eventually any power the state has will be abused. Current events in the USA make that incredibly clear. There are very few justifiable reasons to remove citizens rights. In the short term it makes you feel safer and in the long term bites you in the ass. No thank you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This is a rather old argument that deals ultimately with the founding principles of democracy.  "For I wish neither to rule nor be ruled, and on that condition I stand apart from the rule, on condition that I will not be ruled by any of you, " (Herodotus almost 2500 years ago)
> 
> Eventually any power the state has will be abused. Current events in the USA make that incredibly clear. There are very few justifiable reasons to remove citizens rights. In the short term it makes you feel safer and in the long term bites you in the ass. No thank you.



But then why everytime there's an incident [Boston, London, etc] when the Govt. announces "they were known to them" does the inevitable cry come "Well why didn't you do something?".....................sorry, ya' can't suck and blow at the same time folks.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Let's also remember that rules aren't normally in place for the 99.99999% of those who wouldn't break them in the first place, but for the rest who do (or, in the case of rules that change to tighten protections up, _did_).  

As for info in "the system"*** that's not supposed to be used for anything but authorized uses, some have doubts because other parts of "the system" that are supposed to protect info haven't always worked so well all the time - here, here and here, for example.


			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But then why everytime there's an incident [Boston, London, etc] when the Govt. announces "they were known to them" does the inevitable cry come "Well why didn't you do something?".....................sorry, ya' can't suck and blow at the same time folks.


I think that comes down to the classic arguement, "do we let a _few_ scumbags free to protect _everyone's_ rights, or do we lock up a _few_ innocent folks and make sure we catch _all_ the scumbags?"  Anyone want to volunteer to be the innocent locked up wrongly in the latter situation knowing _every_ last scumbag is off the streets?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Anyone?

* - I know VAC info management systems =/= law enforcement agency info management systems, but they're both government systems holding info about us.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I didn't say "lock up innocents" but, IMO mind you, more info makes weeding out the scumbags easier......


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I didn't say "lock up innocents" but, IMO mind you, more info makes weeding out the scumbags easier......


No, no - I didn't mean _you_ said it (you never did, and I'd bet you likely would never support the idea - methinks you're busy enough as is  ).  When it comes to taking away people's rights, that's one of the arguements considered to calculate the costs & benefits of different approaches.  I'm using the "does anyone want to step forward?" example to highlight potential outcome of going toooooooo far one way.


----------



## Nemo888

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But then why everytime there's an incident [Boston, London, etc] when the Govt. announces "they were known to them" does the inevitable cry come "Well why didn't you do something?".....................sorry, ya' can't suck and blow at the same time folks.



If you look at the number of lives lost versus the endless billions of dollars spent it is a ridiculous waste of public funds from an actuarial standpoint. Investing in infrastructure and medicine, even basic medical research would literally save more lives. As a product of the Cold War I think giving up our freedoms is ignorant and to do so in such and expensive and irrational way doubly so.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> - methinks you're busy enough as is  ).



Nope,... London is busy because the Deputy Minister is a stooge,..............no wait, that would be an insult to Curly, Larry and Moe.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If you look at the number of lives lost versus the endless billions of dollars spent it is a ridiculous waste of public funds from an actuarial standpoint. Investing in infrastructure and medicine, even basic medical research would literally save more lives. As a product of the Cold War I think giving up our freedoms is ignorant and to do so in such and expensive and irrational way doubly so.



Somehow when those are your legs being held together by the kindness of strangers I'll bet you wish more money was spent,...just sayin'.......


----------



## Nemo888

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Somehow when those are your legs being held together by the kindness of strangers I'll bet you wish more money was spent,...just sayin'.......



Probably not. I don't expect democracy to be free or safe. I choose to pay the cost of liberty knowing the risks. If the same money can save 12 lives somewhere else and you need to destroy your personal liberty to get that tiny additional largely psychological feeling of safety I am not interested. There are much cheaper ways to provide that safety as well. Stopping immigration from countries full of crazies and throwing out the ones we already have could solve the problem in two weeks and cost almost nothing.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I have no words..................


----------



## GAP

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Probably not. I don't expect democracy to be free or safe. I choose to pay the cost of liberty knowing the risks. If the same money can save 12 lives somewhere else and you need to destroy your personal liberty to get that tiny additional largely psychological feeling of safety I am not interested. There are much cheaper ways to provide that safety as well. Stopping immigration from countries full of crazies and throwing out the ones we already have could solve the problem in two weeks and cost almost nothing.



Hmmm....like not letting a ship full of German Jewish refugees land (ah la early 1940's) because they were not the flavour of the day?


----------



## Nemo888

The remark is inflammatory. But historically when Canada was faced with similar circumstances they did not choose to spend billions taking away everyone's liberty while bankrupting the nation. They locked up all the possible terrorists and then sold their belongings at auction actually helping the economy. There were no terrorist attacks during internment. So moral outrage aside it was cheap and effective.

Could there not be solutions to the security problems we face that are cheaper, more targeted and less morally offensive? George Orwell's 1984 is supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a recipe book.


----------



## ArmyRick

Fellas, 

We can implement all these measures to "prevent" and/or "help catch" these street thugs.

Guess what? There will still be murders, rapes, kidnappings, robbery, assault. There will still be victims and there will still be some criminals that getaway.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>nothing to hide= nothing to fear

No-one has the power to guarantee that will always be true.  People can misuse information; people have misused information; on balance of probability, people will continue to misuse information.

However much information I have already consented to provide to various concerns and agencies weighs exactly zero as evidence that I should have to provide more.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> However much information I have already consented to provide to various concerns and agencies weighs exactly zero as evidence that I should have to provide more.



Just don't get arrested for any serious crime and this won't apply to you......next......


----------



## ArmyRick

Don't get arrested for any serious crime? Thats not always up to the individual, be at the wrong place and wrong time, you could get the 'cuffs.

Whoa! Lets back that up. Police will arrest suspects for various reasons. Sometimes the people arrested and originally suspected at a crime are not always the guilty ones who committed the crime. There have been cases where police have made mistakes. Its not always the case that a person not convicted at a trial walks on legal technicality. 

I happen to know (no names will be mentioned) a CF member accused of rape (only on a complaint from an alleged victim). I was the attending officer for this soldier and has the investigation went along, the charges were dropped because the police found plenty of evidence that showed this guy was not guilty or even in the province at the time of the alleged offence. I do believe it was the crown that dropped or withdrew charges.

So do not get arrested for any serious crime. huh? Yeah, its SO SIMPLE!  :


----------



## Jacky Tar

"Nothing to fear = nothing to hide" and now "Just don't get arrested for any serious crime."

Frankly, Mr. Monkhouse, I could give a damn about making life easier for LEOs. By virtue of their duties they already enjoy powers, both de facto and de jure, that exceed those of regular citizens, and this is as it should be for them to be LEOs. However, by the same token, they should be (a) held to a much, much higher standard and (b) the conditions under which they exercise their powers need to be hedged about with safeguards. Plus, as I previously noted, I am NOT convinced such data is sufficiently securely held.


----------



## FJAG

I still don't agree with you Bruce but your argument just got stronger today.

The US Supreme Court (a right wing leaning organization at the moment) has just released a decision (5-4 so hardly unanimous) that supports a Maryland law that permits DNA swabbing on arrest.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(The full decision is available at that link)

The case was a clear example that there was no real need for DNA for identification in the matter for which the accused was arrested. Instead the DNA sample led to a hit to a completely unrelated rape case.

The minority wrote a strongly worded dissent based on the 4th Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search grounds).

Interesting to note that only half the states have this kind of law but 49 states filed intervenor applications in support of Maryland's defence of the law and that even the Obama government has signalled approval of it.

 :cold: chilling.


----------



## OldSolduer

Having looked at the gun registry and its issues, I'd say the DNA bank would have similar issues.

Just an opinion.


----------



## Jacky Tar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Having looked at the gun registry and its issues, I'd say the DNA bank would have similar issues.
> 
> Just an opinion.


 :goodpost:


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:
			
		

> The case was a clear example that there was no real need for DNA for identification in the matter for which the accused was arrested. Instead the DNA sample led to a hit to a completely unrelated rape case.



Great news.


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:
			
		

> :cold: chilling.



I think that's hell freezing over - since Scalia and Sotomayer were on the same side...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FJAG said:
			
		

> The case was a clear example that there was no real need for DNA for identification in the matter for which the accused was arrested. Instead the DNA sample led to a hit to a completely unrelated rape case.



...and the loser loses.   Win-win......

I still fail to see the difference if they had run his fingerprints upon arrest and the same 'hit' had come back though........ ???


----------



## GAP

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and the loser loses.   Win-win......
> 
> I still fail to see the difference if they had run his fingerprints upon arrest and the same 'hit' had come back though........ ???



DNA is a wider catchment area, whereas fingerprints depend on them being able to lift a clear print with xx points of matching comparison. 

Not really sure if I am for or against yet. 

One concern would be your DNA being picked up in the course of the investigation where it implicated you, but your DNA being there was a completely innocent activity. 

An example might be something as simple as riding in a vehicle that was involved in criminal activity a day or so later....your DNA might be there, but you had no involvement in the criminal activity..... :2c:


----------



## cupper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think that's hell freezing over - since Scalia and Sotomayer were on the same side...



I'm not actually surprised that Scalia went the way he did. His history on protecting 4th amendment rights is well documented, and his view that the Constitution not being a living document would also come into play on this as well.

The fact that Thomas and Scalia came down on different sides of the issue is the scarier part. 

And Breyer pulling to the right? That's a new one.


----------



## Nemo888

The problem is in the USA you can be "arrested" for driving around the wrong neighborhood.(happened to me) They can also ask you to produce ID and funds to prove you are not a vagrant if you walk late at night in some jurisdictions. In some neighborhoods the police feel like an occupying force. They are terrified and trigger happy. I don't think Canadians understand what it is like in some of the poorer US jurisdictions.

If you are poor police in the USA can run your DNA just for kicks now. Perhaps the TSA will want your DNA soon to get on a flight. It's for your safety. You wouldn't want to be  on a plane with a terrorist would you?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I still fail to see the difference if they had run his fingerprints upon arrest and the same 'hit' had come back though........ ???


Never thought of that.


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I still fail to see the difference if they had run his fingerprints upon arrest and the same 'hit' had come back though........ ???



You're not the only one Bruce.

At the risk of making this complex, I'll throw a couple of Supreme Court decisions, the Carter of Rights, and the Criminal Code into the fray.

As a starting point the Charter of Rights protects individuals (s8) against unreasonable search and seizure; and (11c) from being a witness in proceedings against himself (basically from self-incrimination).

In Canada, the right to photograph and fingerprint an arrested, but not yet convicted, person, comes from the "Identification of Criminals Act) - that Act was reviewed by the SCC in R v Beare in 1988 not long after the Charter was passed. I will attach that decision in a separate post as I'm having some file size issues with it. I have highlighted some key issues in it.

Note that the case provides very good reasons why fingerprinting is necessary before conviction, and I accept all of those as good valid reasons. I've got an RCMP officer as a son-in-law, so I'm basically a pro-cop kind of guy. The case also says that fingerprinting is a "virtually infallible tool" for identification purposes.

DNA is a newer process and we have established a very good DNA database which both protexts privacy, ensures that the samples cannot be used for an improper purpose and effectively provides for two streams for obtaing samples. This comes by way of the numerous and complex provisions of section 487 of the Criminal Code (as well as other but compliant legislation such as in the NDA).

The first string relates to individuals "convicted" of one or more of a long string of offences where the judge may order that a DNA sample be provided. Again the key here is - convicted.

The second string relates to individuals who have not yet been convicted but who have been charged or are under investigation for a specific crime. Here a judge may issue a warrant for DNA sample on "reasonable grounds" (see s487.055 for all the details)

Again, I have absolutely no problems with either of those systems. IMHO they provide the appropriate balance between someone who is convicted of an offence and who requires more stringent monitoring and someone who has not yet been convicted who deserves the safeguard of a judge who determines if the police have enough reason to "search" the individual.

I will include the R v Roberts decision as it gives a good overview of the existing DNA system.

Note that Roberts is about a person who was convicted of a sexual offence but before the new DNA laws came into effect. The police wanted his DNA in the database before he was released from jail and the SCC agreed that it was lawful to obtain a sample through the provisions set out in the CCC. On the result I agree with that outcome as well although you'll see that three judges did dissent on the procedure that was used.

My position is pretty straightforward. Fingerprinting (and photo ident) is an acceptable system for identifying an individual for all the purposes and reasons set out in Beare. More importantly, fingerprinting and photos are a sufficient system to meet all those objectives. More intrusion is not necessary for the IoCA purposes.

DNA clearly does provide an extra dimension that will help solve cases. Don't get me wrong. That's a laudable aim but it goes beyond the identification rationale that the court set in Beare for fingerprinting. 

With DNA we should go back to square one and ask ourselves what is the balance of safeguards for the individual against unreasonable search or self-incrimination? IMHO the existing laws do that quite well.

Unfortunately I think I may be  :deadhorse: . 

When I read the Roberts decision I tend to see that the majority has an infatuation with DNA and its "similarity" to fingerprinting. 

That said, Roberts was a convicted felon, and the court was considering the case under today's laws. It might be that if s11c of the Charter were argued (it wasn't in Roberts) together with s8 in a case under the proposed provisions where the cops are given the authority to take warrantless DNA samples, that several members of the majority might jump ship.

We live in interesting times. I often think that we suffer from a lazy media that superficially sensationalizes everything that comes its way. The result is we all start to believe that we live on the edge Armageddon and have to give up more and more individual rights in order to preserve our personal security. The result is we too often knee-jerk when more deliberation ought to be given.

In the words of Senator Padmé: "So this is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause." 

 :2c:


----------



## FJAG

:-[   Sorry folks the attachments are too large so I'll just direct you to the SCC cases (no highlighting I'm afraid)

R v Beare   http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/374/index.do

R v Rodgers   http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6/index.do


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bump - back on the radar ....


> The federal government is considering a move to collect DNA samples from suspects upon arrest for certain crimes, a significant expansion of current DNA databank laws that is raising concerns for criminal defence lawyers and civil-rights advocates.
> 
> In a recent interview, Peter MacKay told The Globe and Mail that he spoke with Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney over the summer about DNA databank legislation and how it can assist police with criminal investigations.
> 
> “I know there’s always privacy considerations in the backdrop to this and it has to be balanced in the bigger picture,” Mr. MacKay said. “But I think that, you know, the timing of the taking of DNA is something that could very well emerge in the future as another issue of importance.”
> 
> Currently, Canadian law allows for DNA samples to be taken from individuals who are convicted of a range of offences, including murder, sexual assault and, in some cases, dangerous driving or drug trafficking. The information can be used to link a suspect to a crime scene or eliminate suspects where a profile in the databank does not match DNA collected at a crime scene.
> 
> “Right now we’re limited to taking it on conviction,” Mr. MacKay said. “It could be expanded to take on arrest, like a fingerprint.”
> 
> Mr. MacKay characterized his conversations about the idea as “preliminary discussions.” However, he said he has followed the issue closely since his time working as a Crown prosecutor. “I maintain that, you know, a genetic fingerprint is no different and could be used in my view as an investigative tool.”
> 
> A spokesman for Mr. Blaney wrote in an e-mail that the office does not usually comment on possible coming legislation ....


_Globe & Mail_, 2 Oct 13


----------



## estoguy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Bump - back on the radar ...._Globe & Mail_, 2 Oct 13



Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by this?


----------



## FJAG

Yup. I've said my bit above.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

Proof positive that a QC is not a sign of a well developed legal mind.


----------



## Container

Since the "realignment" of lab services....there is NO way that the influx in samples could be handled.

Although it is worth repeating that it isnt for every arrest. Only those "primary designated offences".


----------



## Navy_Pete

I personally don't see anything wrong with the current system of taking DNA during conviction or need to expand it outwards.  For numerous reasons already more eloquently addressed by others I am against this idea.

Also, would the cost of this not be enormous?  If every time they arrest someone (more recent article was fairly general but didn't restrict it to only certain crimes)  they are doing a DNA test, won't that just create a massive volume of samples to be processed?  Common sense and basic statistics dictate that a large number of samples would have more mixups in the processing of them all (ie 1% error for a hundred tests is 1 case, but in 10 000 tests is 100).  And would they not have to do it every time they arrest someone to verify against the database?


----------



## Container

its not on very arrest. No matter what the news says. It is ignorant at its best.

Everytime there is a hit on a database it has to be verified against a "new" sample. The "hit" just gives you the grounds to apply for a warrant to get a new sample.

Samples are attached to fingerprints- im not sure how a mix up would happen. It is more likely that it would take years for the samples to be entered.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I get that it's not every arrest.  Still it seems that it would be a huge uptick in samples taken that would require testing.  Which would have an associated cost, and very little gain to no apparent gain.

As far as mistakes go, just saying it's more likely you will have more false identifications based on DNA due to lab errors.  I guess at least if that means they have to go get an additional 'new' sample to verify that it isn't a false positive it's not bad, but still.

The bottom line is that DNA isn't a fingerprint.  A fingerprint doesn't give you any real identifying info about someone other then if it's a match or not, whereas DNA is your blueprint.  It's like comparing photo of an iphone with the full production drawings.  They are now starting to deny people insurance based on DNA tests showing they are predispositioned to some kind of genetic condition.  I don't trust that if they start taking it for arrests vice convictions, it won't open the door for larger scale use of DNA information from corporations.


----------



## Container

I think we're on the same page. I don't see huge benefits here- especially given that in my experience we don't actually use the DNA databank to its potential within the framework we already have. There are a tonne of offences that the judges could order DNA taken on now that they don't. I feel we would be better served if we got good mileage out of what we have now before we do an honest evaluation and tinker with it.

When I attended the forensics program at the Canadian police college I was shocked at how little bang for our buck we get from the DNA databank. The idea was in 15 years we would really start seeing results. It's been a few years now and I'm seeing a few hits here and there.

The way it works is. Sample goes in and get associated to a name/number. The whole of the DNA information isn't stored. Just certain segments of the information. I find blood or fluid at the scene- submits swab. The info I get back is name/dob. I can't charge based on that- what it gives me is the level of belief required to get a warrant for a DNA sample from that person.

I get that new sample, compare it to the scene sample. That gives me the grounds for a charge- not the databank. This is to ensure that in the tiny chance that their is a mistake- it's caught before charges.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Thanks for the explanation, that makes more sense.


----------

