'modest encroachments'

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're wrong. making a mass search to find suspicious activity is no different from checking one person, without probable cause, for the same thing. you are not being consistent. you either have to have cause, or you don't. a judge did not sign off on king, but did on the phone records. is king a criminal? yes. are some verizon customers probably criminal? yes.

Except for the fact King was under arrest for a felony and verizon customers were/are not.

If he left a finger print at the scene of the rape, instead of DNA that was entered into IAFIS and came up as a match to the crime when his prints were run be OK? Or would printing him be a violation of his 4rth amendment?

DNA is just a more precise fingerprint IMO.

Had he been arrested on trumped up charges solely in order to get a DNA swab, that would be a violation of his 4rth amendment rights but that wasn't the case.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Except for the fact King was under arrest for a felony and verizon customers were/are not.

If he left a finger print at the scene of the rape, instead of DNA that was entered into IAFIS and came up as a match to the crime when his prints were run be OK? Or would printing him be a violation of his 4rth amendment?

DNA is just a more precise fingerprint IMO.

Had he been arrested on trumped up charges solely in order to get a DNA swab, that would be a violation of his 4rth amendment rights but that wasn't the case.

i'm sorry you're choosing to ignore the fact that his dna was NOT USED FOR ID. an arrest does NOT equal guilty. looking at one man's dna in a dna pool with NO names isn't making sure he's who he says he is. it is looking at all unsolved crimes as a way to create suspicion. much like looking thru phone records is a way to create suspicion, not confirm. searches are supposed to be performed on people if you have reasonable suspicion they have committed a specific crime.
and kings arrest when they did the dna-resulted in a misdemeanor conviction, not a felony. many states do dna swabs on convicts, not arrestees. that is what it should be in all states.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm sorry you're choosing to ignore the fact that his dna was NOT USED FOR ID. an arrest does NOT equal guilty. looking at one man's dna in a dna pool with NO names isn't making sure he's who he says he is. it is looking at all unsolved crimes as a way to create suspicion. much like looking thru phone records is a way to create suspicion, not confirm. searches are supposed to be performed on people if you have reasonable suspicion they have committed a specific crime.
and kings arrest when they did the dna-resulted in a misdemeanor conviction, not a felony. many states do dna swabs on convicts, not arrestees. that is what it should be in all states.

And you choose to ignore the fact when one is printed it is run through IAFIS not only to see if it matches a previous print on file but also latent prints taken from crimes. If the arrestee is coming through the system for the first time there is no print match on file but it is still run for unknown suspects from a crime. I'm sure when the latent print is obtained and ran it comes back no hit. Otherwise a warrant would all ready exist for the arrestee. I believe there is even an award given by the FBI for latent print hit of the year. This guy's original charge was classified as a felony and he pled down for a reason I suspect.

Fingerprinting started with no data base to confirm identity but it did create an identifier besides a name for arrestees/convicts. The same can be said of DNA especially taken in a swab only it's a much more precise identifier.

The comparing of Verizon customers to this felon I just don't get.

[Danzig]

they both have to do with the fourth amendment. if you read scalia's dissent, which i figure you have not, you'll see the case he laid out, and the arguments he made. it all has to do with searches to create suspicion, vs a warranted search due to suspicion/probable cause.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

they both have to do with the fourth amendment. if you read scalia's dissent, which i figure you have not, you'll see the case he laid out, and the arguments he made. it all has to do with searches to create suspicion, vs a warranted search due to suspicion/probable cause.

I will stick with the majority of the Supreme court on this one. Maybe it's because I see a difference between an individual under arrest for a felony and an individual going about his day, armed with a cell phone. Meanwhile I don't see much difference between a fingerprint and DNA swab.

You keep ignoring the fact arrestees and convicts have had their prints matched to murders/rapes/bank robberies for eons with no suspicion or probable cause as you see it. The matching of King to the rape could have come from a print left at the scene, instead it came from DNA.

[Danzig]

have you read the dissent?

the majority gave a ruling based on 'identity'. scalie completely demolishes that reasoning, and excoriates the 'logic' behind the ruling. the dna swab was NOT to search identity, which was what the majority based their decision on.
also, his dissent explains in detail about searching based not on probable cause, but on finding probable cause. he also explains that fingerprinting has never been ruled on by scotus, it's one of those things that we've become inured to with time.
you know, what this admin is hoping we will become regarding emails, etc? and we've seen majority opinions be wrong, and later overturned. i'm hoping that's what happens here.

again, have you read the dissent? if not, you're refusing to look into something that may sway your thinking. better not do that, right?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

have you read the dissent?

again, have you read the dissent? if not, you're refusing to look into something that may sway your thinking. better not do that, right?

I've put in 60 hrs. at work the last 4 weeks in a row and with the hawks playing and my golf addiction calling frankly I haven't had time. I may this evening, we'll see?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

have you read the dissent?

again, have you read the dissent? if not, you're refusing to look into something that may sway your thinking. better not do that, right?

Needed a break from work and read the majority as well as Scalia’s minority opinion and contrary to your theory it did not sway my opinion. But here’s how I dissent Scalia’s dissent.

Scalia states, “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.”

I’d argue King was not searched for evidence. The evidence in this case was the DNA left at the scene of the rape. King was legally swabbed per the Maryland DNA Collection Act.

He goes on to say, ‘or to search a person “whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence,”’

I believe waving a shotgun at a group with many witnesses outside of those threatened meets the criteria of an offence described and supported by a preponderance of the evidence. King after asking for a ‘speedy trial by his peers’ as Scalia pointed out pled guilty much later but he left that fact out of his opinion. Seems the Judge is very time sensitive sometimes and not so much other times.

He then attempts to describe the differences between finger print and DNA data bases albeit with great bias. He points out an electronic finger print takes an average of 24 minutes yet neglects to point out it’s a relatively new technology and it wasn’t so long ago, finger prints were taken manually, on a card, and then sent to Quantico for a manual check against cards on file after the print was ‘pointed’. Many times a arrestee would bail out before his/her prints came back.

He does go into detail of the time needed to run a DNA sample thru CODIS. He then explains the two data bases of CODIS pointing out the one for arrestees/convicts bears no name only an identification number (that can lead to a name by back tracking the sample). The other is for unsolved crimes, obviously with no names attached.

He neglects to point out that finger prints, like DNA samples from arrestees and convicts aren’t filed by name but by FBI Number. Like the DNA sample number the FBI number can then be back tracked to find as Scalia stated, “detailed identification information, including “criminal histories; mug shots; scars and tattoo photos; physical characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color.” Without looking up the FBI number the identification can not be made. Similar to the way a DNA sample number would be looked up.

Lastly he points out “Latent prints” recovered from crime scenes are not systematically compared against the database of known fingerprints, since that requires further forensic work.”

If it didn’t require further forensic work to systematically check would it then be a violation of 4rth Amendment rights? If say the 24 minutes to process an electronic finger print is reduced to 24 seconds and a simultaneous search of the data base of latent prints taken from crimes is completed would fingerprinting then cross the threshold and become an illegal search for evidence?

Bottom line for me is the evidence in this case was the DNA obtained from the semen left at the rape, could have been a finger print or even a name on a deposit slip. The process of matching that DNA to the sample taken at the time of the arrest is akin to a name match made through a NCIS check after a traffic violation with a match to say again a deposit slip.

Lastly, if this has little to do with finger printing as an accepted form of identification why did Scalia spill so much ink on it, as he likes to put it?

I’ll wait for your dissent of my dissent one more time and I’m putting this one to bed. Just hope Alonso has something special planned for tonight and the poor woman who he raped enjoys hers. I’m out for some barbeque ribs and sweet corn so I know I’ll enjoy the rest of mine.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You keep ignoring the fact arrestees and convicts have had their prints matched to murders/rapes/bank robberies for eons with no suspicion or probable cause as you see it.