On 29 April 2018 at 13:44, Matt Lawes <matt@insysx.com> wrote:
So far none of this requires a warrant, nor should it.
I only had a quick read over the articles, so I might be missing stuff that is already out there...
But the issue they seem to be focusing on is the collection (and subsequent testing) of the "discarded DNA" from the Sacramento police and the FBI surveillance operations;
The notes on the Prop 69 law that California passed on the ballot indicate that "collecting" DNA evidence requires "consent or a warrant" - https://oag.ca.gov/bfs/prop69/faqs#suspect
"Law enforcement agencies may, however, submit to their primary lab services provider for DNA testing and entry into the State Database a known sample of a suspect's blood, saliva, or other biological substance that has been obtained without regard to Proposition 69 (e.g., by consent or warrant). (Cal. Pen. Code, § 297(b)(1).) "
However the phrase being used is ... "Discarded DNA", which kind of suggests that no warrant was obtained for either of the samples that they obtained. There is some analysis here from the 25th, where the author assumes that it was obtained without a warrant ... "Whatever it was, something was discarded, and it contained DeAngelo's DNA. The police took it and tested it, most likely without a warrant. " - https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/how-discarded-dna-helped-cops-legally-catch-the-suspected-golden-state-killer/
That article also mentioned previous cases;
"California v. Greenwood (1988), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no constitutionally-protected privacy right to discarded items."
and
"Minutes after the interview concluded and [the suspect] had departed the station, the police, who had noticed [the suspect] rubbing his bare arms against the armrests of the chair in which he had been seated, took swabs of the armrests in an attempt to collect his DNA. The police submitted those swabs to the crime lab for DNA analysis, which revealed that the DNA extracted from the swabs matched DNA samples investigators had collected from the scene of the rape."
...
"The issue the court examined wasn't the collection of the DNA, but the subsequent testing of the DNA. The Maryland court ruled that the testing was legal" - Raynor v. Maryland (2015)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAB%2BzPJCc%3DEN-D3_%2BHBqENH81E%3DtxARk%2BwNpwp3FP3VG1BfSibA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment