Police cite privacy concerns over their own DNA

[wyatt earp]

What's good for the goose aint good for the gander.........

By DAVE COLLINS, Associated Press Dave Collins, Associated Press – 49 mins ago

HARTFORD, Conn. – When police in southern Louisiana were investigating the deaths of eight women in 2009, the sophistication of the crimes set off rumors that the serial killer was a police officer — speculation that became so pervasive that officials ordered DNA testing of law enforcement personnel to rule it out.

All local officers agreed to the testing and were eliminated as suspects, but the killer remains at large, said Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff Ricky Edwards.

Having officers' DNA samples on file is important for saving time in investigations and fending off doubt about evidence at trials because it allows authorities to identify unknown genetic material found at crime scenes, Edwards and other police and crime lab officials say.

Police in other parts of the country, however, are not as willing to hand over their DNA. Rank-and-file police from Connecticut to Chicago to Los Angeles have opposed what some experts say is a slowly emerging trend in the U.S. to collect officers' DNA.

"From a civil liberties standpoint, there are a lot of red flags," said Connecticut Trooper Steven Rief, former president of the state police union.

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111016/ap_on_re_us/us_police_dna

[longhair51]

Originally posted by wyatt earp
"From a civil liberties standpoint, there are a lot of red flags," said Connecticut Trooper Steven Rief, former president of the state police union.

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111016/ap_on_re_us/us_police_dna
YA THINK SO????? It must be a bitc# to walk in the shoes of a regular subject......er I mean person.

[Thorack]

Well,

Speaking as a member of the armed forces where DNA is on file for all members. The civilian law enforcement weenies need to get with the program or drop their paper work.

Thorack

[cpd109]

Originally posted by Thorack
Well,

Speaking as a member of the armed forces where DNA is on file for all members. The civilian law enforcement weenies need to get with the program or drop their paper work.

Thorack

I disagree with this. Officer's DNA would be used to ID suspects of crimes, and everyone in the US has some expectation of privacy except for that obtained under due process.

The military wants the DNA so they can ID a member who is otherwise unrecognizable due to a bomb blast or an MIA who has been unaccounted for decades. I suspect that this DNA can also be used to ID a suspect since it's part of their record system, but that's not the purpose of it.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Thorack]

Hmmm,

Interesting, what have you got to hide? Your opinion carries the the same weight as mine. I think people that are given responsibilities to protect others should be held to a higher standard. Including giving finger prints and DNA samples to rule them out as criminals. What are the cops afraid of? You are correct that the intial use of military DNA collection was for remains identification.

Thorack

[saltshaker]

Originally posted by Thorack
Well,

Speaking as a member of the armed forces where DNA is on file for all members. The civilian law enforcement weenies need to get with the program or drop their paper work.

Thorack

A big +1......Act like it so why not be like it? Besides it is for your own good.....the line is over there.....

Besides, The DNA can be used to rule out a LEO in a contaminated scene..... ie.....A shooting or vehicle accident.....Or a demolished sky scraper...(Terrorist attack)
Fire fighters and emergency response personnel as well......

[cpd109]

Originally posted by saltshaker


A big +1......Act like it so why not be like it? Besides it is for your own good.....the line is over there.....

Besides, The DNA can be used to rule out a LEO in a contaminated scene..... ie.....A shooting or vehicle accident.....Or a demolished sky scraper...(Terrorist attack)
Fire fighters and emergency response personnel as well......

This would be/should be on a case by case basis. (Of course, once the cat is out of the bag, its out.)

[cpd109]

Originally posted by Thorack
Hmmm,

Interesting, what have you got to hide? Thorack

I could tell you but, well, you know the rest....

[kayakpirate]

"Nothing to worry about...unless youre guilty of something."
Seems, I remember hearing refusal in some cases,is an admission of guilt

[justashooter]

Originally posted by cpd109


I disagree with this. Officer's DNA would be used to ID suspects of crimes, and everyone in the US has some expectation of privacy except for that obtained under due process.



tell that to all of the people who have been swabbed without prosecution, much less conviction.

[wonderdog451]

I personally think that all law enforcement officers regardless of whatever agency they work for should have DNA on file as a condition of their employment. If you do not like that policy then you are not getting hired, end of discussion. If they are that worried about it, then the question should be," What do you know about DNA that we don't / or should know?"

[cpd109]

Originally posted by justashooter


tell that to all of the people who have been swabbed without prosecution, much less conviction.

Like someone writes on this forum, I don't make policy except for the 100 yds, or something like that. I have never swabbed anyone without a warrant or their permission. Nor would I. Nor would I coerce anyone into doing so. There is a right way and plenty of wrong ways to do things. I go with the right way so I can sleep at night. But as you pointed out, that's just me.

I know Kalifornia does it when releasing inmates after doing their time. Solved a rape that way once that was 7 yrs old. But that was DNA from an inmate as he was being released. (Yeah, I know, AS HE WAS BEING RELEASED. Again, that wasn't me.)

BTW, if the DNA didn't match, they would not started a prosecution (if they had a brain) since their own evidence would prove that they were wrong.

[JasonB]

No cop wants to be the next Detective Stephanie Lazarus.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/transcripts-video-show-lapd-detective-stephanie-lazarus-busted/story?id=12239026

There is a fair chance a brother/sister officer at a given time can be counted on to help bury a crime, but who wants some knucklehead a few years down the road (who actually believes all the slogans) having access to evidence?

[SWOHFAL]

"If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to hide...." :rolleyes:

[RG Coburn]

DNA isn't the "be-all,end-all" they claim. It would not be that difficult to place hair or even blood at crime scenes.You leave hair on the barber's floor,and blood at the Red Cross..
Heck,women cops toss blood samples in the trash,for one week every month.

[JasonB]

Apparently some women cops seem to leave DNA in bite marks on victims also.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by JasonB
Apparently some women cops seem to leave DNA in bite marks on victims also.

Some male cops like to leave DNA on their victims too.

[Varangian]

Originally posted by cpd109


I disagree with this. Officer's DNA would be used to ID suspects of crimes, and everyone in the US has some expectation of privacy except for that obtained under due process.

The military wants the DNA so they can ID a member who is otherwise unrecognizable due to a bomb blast or an MIA who has been unaccounted for decades. I suspect that this DNA can also be used to ID a suspect since it's part of their record system, but that's not the purpose of it.

Just my 2 cents worth.

DoD turns servicemember DNA samples over to CODIS, even though they swore this would not happen when DNA collection started.

You're nothing special. Just another civilian, not some superbeing that's above everyone else, contrary to what you probably tell yourself in the mirror every morning. Being around crime scenes and victims as part of their job, police need to provide DNA samples as a condition of employment, or settle for whatever other job that only requires a desire for authority over others as a result of humiliation as a teenager and a promise to obtain a GED.

[akajun]

Well in the first place the original article is flawed.During the Derrick Todd Lee, a cop hating legislator whos son is a frequent flyer came up with the idea that it was an officer and pushed a bill through the legislature that police applicants needed to give their DNA "in case another 911 happened". Well it passed, and the serial killer was not an officer, just some perverted concrete truck driver. No officers were selected en masse to collect DNA, a few were swabbed because of "tips" called in but no samples resulted in a cold case arrest for anything.

Fast Forward 5 years now If I handle evidence that needs to be processed for DNA such as a gun, I must submit a reference sample to eliminate my dna, however My sample is not supposed to be entered into CODIS. I really dont care if it is, but I do fear the day that a Gattica type situation occurs, where its illegal to discriminate based on DNA, but is done anyway.
They already tried to shove a "Wellness" program down our throat mandating prostate exams and bmi indexes. Many felt this was a way to jack up our insurance rates or deny coverage. I flat out told the mayors rep that I can take care of my own health and that if he wants to start a wellness prgram then go deal with the fatasses who cant even fit in their car and smoke like a train.