Our Friday editorial gave the Wichita Police Department points for openness for its belated incineration this week of the 1,300 DNA swabs taken in the BTK investigation — the second-largest DNA sweep in the nation, after Miami’s 1994 swabbing of 2,300 men. Like the vast majority of such sweeps, this one didn’t catch the killer; police used other methods to finger Dennis Rader as the serial killer. And such DNA swab-athons continue to raise privacy, profiling and cost-effectiveness concerns. Meanwhile, Kansas has joined six other states in requiring all suspects arrested for felony crimes (eventually including DUIs) to have their DNA samples taken and entered into a database. As our editorial noted, “the records of suspects will remain in the database, even if the charges are dismissed or the person is acquitted. Those who cherish civil liberties should be uneasy about treating the DNA profiles of the innocent no differently from those of the guilty.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
17 Comments
Many people will know find the new law in Kansas a wonderful thing. Eventually they’ll find out what was really passed. . . an expensive boondoogle that promises massive invasions of privacy on minimal showings, and years of tangled legislation.
Phil Journey: the most sensible person in the room? Geez! Bewildering, yet true.
Rage, I agree. There is no reason to take DNA at booking; if a person is convicted, take it then.
Pointless, meaningless, unnecessarily invasive statute.
Unconstitutional on the face. It is the same as testifying against yourself. Somebody, somewhere will go to court and get it overturned.
Gittin’, you are correct.But that don’t mean crap in today’s America.It’s a nation turned upside down in our values.The gov’t wants us to believe that an honest reading of the constitution is damned UnAmerican.
What happens if you refuse?Gitmo?
No Tracy,
They have worse places to send liberal dissenters…
Welcome to the Police State. America as we knew it is dead.
Welcome to Amerikka.
Abu Ghraib
That is funny. What part of America do you guys live in?
I find it wierd that they allow you guys internet access in Amerikka.
Where I live I have cable TV, Internet access, guns, food, water, school… I have a truck.
So which part of America is it you guys are being oppressed in?
“They have worse places to send liberal dissenters…” To grade school in Kansas?
JM, that was your best one in a long time. :-)
Gittin’ madder:
While I do not agree with the statute (see above), such a statute does NOT require you to testify against yourself, anymore than requiring a person being booked in jail to give his fingerprints and have his picture taken. The 5th amendment privilege is a TESTIMONIAL privilege, and does not apply to physical evidence. In that respect, the 4th amendment applies.While one might make a 4th amendment arguement here, it is hard to argue that you have a privacy interest in your DNA; we leave it lying around all the time. Just as we leave our fingerprints around.
No, this statute isn’t unconstitutional; it’s just dumb.
So, did they torch the swabs as a big PR stunt, and then keep the records anyway?
The envelopes were empty.
Ben..
Please demonstrate your proof of that one. That is a rather libelous claim. Please back it up.
Bendover is a pederast.
Ben,No, I’m sure the evelopes contained the swabs. The readouts though, have no doubt found their way to somebody in Nigeria who is, at this moment, figuring out how to use them to separate their subjects from their bank accounts!