{"id":2867,"date":"2009-01-16T21:00:47","date_gmt":"2009-01-16T13:35:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-01-16T13:35:54","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2867","title":{"rendered":"DNA testing of federal arrestees started Jan. 9th; DNA is taken on fingerprinting"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a little noticed move, the federal government started taking DNA samples from arrestees and<\/em> immigration detainees without regard to conviction. See the Chicago Tribune<\/a>. Few other papers mentioned it. <\/p>\n

The proposed regulation is here<\/a> posted April 18, 2008. The summary states:<\/p>\n

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is publishing this proposed rule to implement amendments made by section 1004 of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and section 155 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. This rule directs agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals, or that supervise individuals facing charges, to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States. Unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General, the collection of DNA samples may be limited to individuals from whom an agency collects fingerprints. The Attorney General also may approve other limitations or exceptions. Agencies collecting DNA samples are directed to furnish the samples to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or to other agencies or entities as authorized by the Attorney General, for purposes of analysis and entry into the Combined DNA Index System.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

DNA is to be taken at fingerprinting:<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Attorney General is directing all agencies of the United States that arrest or detain individuals or supervise individuals facing charges to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14135a(a)(1)(A), if the agency takes fingerprints from such individuals.<\/p>\n

The Department recognizes, however, that there may be some circumstances in which agencies collect fingerprints but in which the collection of DNA samples would not be warranted or feasible. For example, in relation to non-arrestees, DHS will not be required to collect DNA samples from aliens who are fingerprinted in processing for lawful admission to the United States, or from aliens from whom DNA-sample collection is otherwise not feasible because of operational exigencies or resource limitations. If any agency believes that such circumstances exist within its sphere of operations, the agency should bring these circumstances to the attention of the Department, and exceptions to the DNA-sample collection requirement may be allowed with the approval of the Attorney General. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Maybe one reason it has not been in the news is that some articles only focused on the testing of arrested suspected illegal immigrants, as in the LATimes<\/a> and Washington Post<\/a>. The NY Times never mentioned it.<\/p>\n

This April 2008 article<\/a> mentioned the DOJ plan which was authorized by statute. So does the regulation’s notice.<\/p>\n

DOJ did not have a press release<\/a> on it.<\/p>\n

I personally doubt the constitutionality of something as intrusive as a DNA sampling without individualized probable cause for it. An arrestee has been convicted of nothing, so all the case law on the special needs exception has utterly no application. And what about a pretextual arrest for something else just to get the DNA of somebody the police cannot show probable cause as to a specific crime? The states will get on the bandwagon, too. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2867","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2867","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2867"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2867\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2867"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2867"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}