Tear Em Asunder

General Discussion Board

CSURamFan

Joined: 2/12/02 Posts: 41614
Likes: 7464


It is an interesting flip of the order of operations if you will


In a typical case evidence is collected and then you get a warrant for a DNA sample once you have probably cause. In these cold cases they have the suspect's DNA from the crime scene and use it to identify the guy. Once they do that it does become easier to get warrants, I would think, but I don't think it lowers the standard. DNA is fairly rock-solid evidence. If they have your semen on a victim I think that's probably cause for a warrant to dig deeper. I don't see that as a low standard. The reason I lean towards this being OK, though needing clear rules defined, is that DNA evidence isn't circumstantial, it's pretty solid.

Now as I understand the Golden State Killer case they identified a guy who they thought was the killer. He had brothers but through detective work they eliminated the other brothers. They couldn't get a warrant for the guy's DNA though. They couldn't search his trash without permission either. So they tailed him until he left something behind, a drinking straw I think. Same thing with this guy, except he was the only son in the family they narrowed it to. This is the area that I think will need new laws/rules, what is and isn't legal in collecting evidence to test DNA vs the suspected killer.


(In response to this post by Cowtown Buff)

Posted: 06/10/2019 at 3:33PM



+0

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
  I think it is a privacy invasion ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 1:06PM
  What part of it is a privacy invasion? ** -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 2:41PM
  It requires a lower standard to obtain evidence -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 2:45PM
  If used to convict, you should -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:03PM
  It weakens probable cause to compel a DNA sample IMO -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:44PM
  Good to know -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:55PM
  Yeah, if it has not happened yet, it inevitably will ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 4:18PM
  Certainly ** -- CSURamFan 06/10/2019 4:24PM
  So do I not have a right to publish my own DNA -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:19PM
  So here is where I stand right now -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:23PM
  And I also don't know that the lineage -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:27PM
  We actually agree more than disagree ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:36PM
  In a recent Star Trek enterprise I just watched... -- Hopsblues 06/10/2019 3:09PM
  I listened to a NYTimes podcast on this -- CSURamFan 06/10/2019 12:49PM
  That is an odd standard to use ** -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 1:25PM
  Agree with Cowtown here -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:25PM
  My point is that DNA is such a strong -- DurwardRam 06/11/2019 05:54AM
  Why, I like to see criminals punished. ** -- DurwardRam 06/10/2019 2:18PM
  I like to see due process followed. -- 60s Rammie 06/10/2019 4:37PM
  Because the Fourth Amendment exists -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 2:30PM
  It's an investigation using public knowledge. -- DurwardRam 06/10/2019 2:44PM
  Correct, I worded that part poorly. ** -- DurwardRam 06/11/2019 06:03AM
  "Public" knowledge -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 2:47PM
  Can a person run into a theater and scream fire? -- 60s Rammie 06/10/2019 5:26PM
  Yeah, I don't have a problem with this -- nateDiggsCSU 06/10/2019 3:31PM
  It definitely went around probable cause -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:06PM
  And this is a really good debate -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:51PM
  Sounds like the DNA from the suspect was obtained legally -- Cowtown Buff 06/10/2019 3:35PM

vm309