19 replies to this topic

[PyROTech]

I have a specific example below but im sure that many people know of more than atleast a few cases were DNA has been used as a tool to solve cases.

But my question relates to providing your DNA during an investigation. Assuming your arent guilty, not a sex offender and arent a criminal...

Q: if asked, would you provide your DNA


Specific case:
http://www.thestar.c...police-say?bn=1 Please take into account, that i chose the quotes from the article, and chose to leave certain elements i didnt find relevant. But you may find other parts relevant to the question above. Also the quotes below are refering to two different cases.

"“If you have nothing to hide, then it’s is your obligation to provide that DNA sample.”"


"Asked whether requests for DNA samples could be seen as an invasion of privacy, Leon said the need to solve the case trumps those concerns"


"In 2003, police went door-to-door in west Toronto asking men to provide a DNA sample during their investigation into the murder of 10-year-old Holly Jones.Michael Briere, 35, refused, one of only two men out of 300 who said no. After a month under around-the-clock surveillance, Briere was arrested when his DNA matched a sample taken from a discarded pop can. He was convicted and is serving a life sentence."

Interestingly, in the case about the 10 year old, they went door to door. 300 people, a 2 block radius of the deceased. Yes they found the person, and it happened to be one of the 2 people who refused. But what about that other guy??? was he also subjected to a month of 24/7 surveillance? Was his guilt assumed just because he refused? Did the neighborhood subject him to intense pressure and scrutinized his every move as if he had committed the horrible crimes?

Note: i made this a public poll, so if you asnwer "no" then are we to think you have little timmy locked in the basement?

[Che'_Moderator]

Who cares. Its already on file for all armed forces employees. I would have no problem doing it. All my bodies are soaked in chlorine gel after anyways so who cares.

I think the better question is, "why am I being questioned". Personally I do not answer the door for cops. If you have any questions I have repersentation. Otherwise bugger off

[PyROTech]

Che, on 25 May 2011 - 06:05 PM, said:

Who cares. Its already on file for all armed forces employees. I would have no problem doing it. All my bodies are soaked in chlorine gel after anyways so who cares.

I think the better question is, "why am I being questioned". Personally I do not answer the door for cops. If you have any questions I have repersentation. Otherwise bugger off

b/c you live in the immediate area of a crime, yet no other evidence exists to link you to the crime other than you house happens to be on the next block.

Also you have a unique scenario as your information is on file due to work. Same goes for many other jobs or even just crossing the border ie. nexus pass (fingerprint and iris photo). Im not sure in your case or really any others, but the DNA search would not include a military database unless specifically requested. If infact a searchable database existed the same as a national police database. I base this totally on speculation (my own personally opinion and no one else's) related to the Col. Russel Williams case in Canada with nothing to back it up.

[Burn-E]

I voted yes but with a caveat - only if I have the right to expunge my DNA details from any database after they've determined that I am not relevant to the case. And I agree with Chuck, it depends on why I'm being questioned. If Law Enforcement is just fishing then no, I have nothing to hide and you have no need to verify that fact just because I live on the block.

[Che'_Moderator]

PyROTech, on 25 May 2011 - 06:17 PM, said:

b/c you live in the immediate area of a crime, yet no other evidence exists to link you to the crime other than you house happens to be on the next block.

Was sorta rhetorical. In that situation, I am not even answering the door.

[PyROTech]

Burn-E, on 25 May 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

I voted yes but with a caveat - only if I have the right to expunge my DNA details from any database after they've determined that I am not relevant to the case. And I agree with Chuck, it depends on why I'm being questioned. If Law Enforcement is just fishing then no, I have nothing to hide and you have no need to verify that fact just because I live on the block.

I believe, yes, they do dispose of the information collected.
"“Once the test is conducted, if it does not form a match, the sample will be destroyed by the Centre for Forensic Sciences,” Leon said." http://www.thestar.c...in-murder-probe

But you also replied with your concerns over it being a fishy expedition just b/c you lived on the same block. Also a concern of mine.

What bothers me is that if it becomes a regular procedure, then its slippery slope. Soon after it may just become standard practice to just DNA test everyone around a crime scene b/c that is how its just done.

Another problem i have with this... what level or type of crime will justify the DNA request??? In the case above, a brutal crime took place, but what if its a break and enter a couple houses down from you and the perpetrator cut himself/herself on the window? DNA for a 2 block radius still seem within reason? Neighbors mail was stolen and a cheque cashed, time to finger print a 2 block radius? Are your answers still the same in those circumstances?

[Che'_Moderator]

HAHAHA. Years with DHS and I can tell you thats not how it happens

[PyROTech]

Che, on 25 May 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

Was sorta rhetorical. In that situation, I am not even answering the door.

I was just reiterating, your rhetorical, yet sarcastic comment. lol

[PyROTech]

Che, on 25 May 2011 - 06:38 PM, said:

HAHAHA. Years with DHS and I can tell you thats not how it happens

i believe your referring to the database? I based my speculation on the fact that a member of the Canadian forces was not presented with a DNA match to the crimes. I took your comment to mean that members of the military have DNA on file. It was based on Canada and not the US, but you have the knowledge I dont, so you could always elaborate on how information is shared. Also, another speculation, the search warrants executed during the initial stages of the investigation appeared not to include his military office on base, but took longer to access. Which i feel means that regular le doesnt have the same freedom in certain cases as it would with the public, even when obtaining warrants issused by the courts.

edited part: though the office could have been delayed due to the sensitive information he has access to, b/c he was the commander of the base.

[Burn-E]

PyROTech, on 25 May 2011 - 06:46 PM, said:

i believe your referring to the database? I based my speculation on the fact that a member of the Canadian forces was not presented with a DNA match to the crimes. I took your comment to mean that members of the military have DNA on file. It was based on Canada and not the US, but you have the knowledge I dont, so you could always elaborate on how information is shared. Also, another speculation, the search warrants executed during the initial stages of the investigation appeared not to include his military office on base, but took longer to access. Which i feel means that regular le doesnt have the same freedom in certain cases as it would with the public, even when obtaining warrants issused by the courts.

edited part: though the office could have been delayed due to the sensitive information he has access to, b/c he was the commander of the base.

No, he's saying that data is never expunged once it gets in. It might disappear from a local or State database but it will live forever in the NSA, DHS, FBI, etc databases. That was why I expressed my caveat. Because it doesn't get expunged. Maybe it works that way in Canada but not down here in the States.

This quote from that article is what causes me the most concern:

Even if an innocent man’s DNA was included in a genetic database, he said, it would come to nothing without a crime scene sample to match it. “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear,” he said.

[Hippicus Rebuildacus]

so perhaps a man is getting a frequent rub & tub at Madame Kamay's Filipino Palace and then suddenly someone was shot & killed... You were number 23 in line and number 24 killed them... suddenly your man sauce happens to be at the crime scene and now your on trial just because you asked for a happy ending that day... uh oh spadoodios

[Che'_Moderator]

Napoleon BONERpants, on 26 May 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

so perhaps a man is getting a frequent rub & tub at Madame Kamay's Filipino Palace and then suddenly someone was shot & killed... You were number 23 in line and number 24 killed them... suddenly your man sauce happens to be at the crime scene and now your on trial just because you asked for a happy ending that day... uh oh spadoodios

Having second throughts about being number 23 at Carlisle

[Hippicus Rebuildacus]

you can be #23 haha just might be wise to be first so her hand isnt tired or at least give her some purell

P.S. I would give DNA... to a hot FBI lady and probably not in the most professional of manners... but she would have it haha

[PyROTech]

http://ccla.org/2011...ss-dna-testing/
"Toronto, ON – May 25, 2011 – The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is calling upon the Ontario Provincial Police to immediately stop the practice of requesting “voluntary” DNA samples from members of the public as part of the ongoing investigation of the murder of Ontario nurse Sonia Varaschin. This practice, which does not involve prior authorization by a court, is highly coercive. It will leave innocent individuals feeling that that they have no other option than to hand their most private information over to the state.DNA samples can contain a wide range of private and sensitive information about a person’s biological make-up. Innocent people have very legitimate privacy interests in this information, and should not, in the absence of a court order, be “asked” to hand it over to the state. Suggesting that such individuals can choose to provide DNA samples on a “voluntary” basis is misleading, and ignores the coercive nature of police requests. Moreover, it ignores the reality that innocent individuals who assert their privacy rights could be perceived as guilty of a heinous crime, even where there is absolutely no evidence to support this perception. If police want to make a request for a sample of an individual’s DNA, they should be required to obtain judicial authorization before doing so.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, the CCLA’s General Counsel, observed that “It is not appropriate for police to conduct criminal investigations by process of elimination”. Des Rosiers further noted that, “Canadians have a legal right to refuse when police ask for warrantless access to their most private personal information. This is a bedrock principle of our system of justice, and one that the OPP is subverting by effectively coercing innocent people to hand over DNA samples to police.”"

[Chilled Man]

Need DNA

Check the socks next to my bed.

[PyROTech]

justin, unlike you. We wash our socks, so sometimes a fresh batch is needed.

[Burn-E]

PyROTech, on 28 May 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

justin, unlike you. We wash our socks, so sometimes a fresh batch is needed.

I don't think the "socks" Justin is discussing are the kind you wear on your feet.

[Burn-E]

PyROTech, on 27 May 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Long discussion of Canadian issues with DNA sampling...

And on that note the Canadian Supreme Court appears to have some funny ideas on what constitutes consent for sexual activity between partners. Better not piss off your wife/S.O. and then kiss her while she's sleeping.

[PyROTech]

Burn-E, on 28 May 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

And on that note the Canadian Supreme Court appears to have some funny ideas on what constitutes consent for sexual activity between partners. Better not piss off your wife/S.O. and then kiss her while she's sleeping.

I read about that. Been in the papers. Its based on specific laws already in place related to those acts. Not the same as the doctor/sedation consent. What is odd, is the the logic, but not the law that was written. And some what related i believe, since i think the courts didnt want to rule in favour of something that could have a slippery slope... just like the DNA situation above.

edited part: ohhh, what are you talking about with justin not refering to something else? btw i prefer cashmere socks.

[Burn-E]

Just a guess but I think #2 is relevant.

http://www.urbandict...efine?term=sock