(03-11-2022 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-11-2022 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What do yall think of this situation?

DNA

The woman was tied to a burglary in late 2021 during a search of a San Francisco Police Department crime lab database, according to District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who said last month that the match came from DNA collected from her as part of a 2016 domestic violence and sexual assault case.

Boudin said he dropped felony property crime charges against the woman after becoming aware of a report, found in evidence of the property crime case, that referred to a DNA sample collected from her during the 2016 rape investigation.

The revelation prompted a national outcry from law enforcement, legal experts, lawmakers and advocates and led San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott to institute new guidelines so that victim DNA would no longer be used in unrelated investigations.


So she skates on a felony?

I’m actually not unhappy about that. The implications are deep about the mass retrieval of dna given without consent or collected without an articulable suspicion.

Remember though, I am a Bill of Rights maximalist idiot.

Yeah, it sounds terrifying from a constitutional perspective to think that the act of providing any sort of DNA as part of a medical examination could come back and be used against you in the future.

Tanq, I assume that the "articulable suspicion" above extends past the potential crime at hand, right? So if you commit a crime and you have your finger prints taken, wouldn't it be reasonable to includes said finger prints in a search for an unrelated crime?