Gansler to Ask Supreme Court to Hear Law Enforcement Case
Law enforcement agencies have called the Maryland Court of Appeals ruling a major setback to public safety.
Photos
Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is asking the Maryland Court of Appeals to issue a stay of its order for Maryland law enforcement agencies to stop collecting DNA from people arrested for certain crimes so he can appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Gazette reported.
In a 5-2 decision, the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned a home invasion rape conviction in the case of Alonzo King v. State of Maryland. The court's decision reversed the 2009 provision officials said helped them solve open investigations, according to Maryland law enforcement officials.
Howard County State’s Attorney Dario J. Broccolino, president of the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association, said in a statement last week that the ability to collect DNA samples from suspects is an “important crime fighting tool.”
William McMahon, Howard County Chief of Police and president of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association said in a statement that DNA collection as a tool, "has been invaluable in our effort and duty to keep citizens safe."
Public safety agencies across Maryland have been urging Gansler to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Montgomery County and local police departments have been up in arms over the ruling, saying it is a major setback to public safety.
MocoLoco
12:06 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
We need to stop willingly giving up privacy rights because we fear criminals. We tolerate these laws because we assume they will only be applied to guilty people, and we're not guilty. But then, when some every-day guy gets arrested based on mistaken identity and is taken to a holding cell and subjected to an intrusive cavity search, we get outraged. We have no idea what this DNA database will be used for in the future, and I think we should be very careful before allowing the government to collect it from us.
Michael
1:23 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
There is only one purpose for this collection of DNA. To solve crimes and convict criminals. The police submit the DNA to a central database, which is used for comparison to unsolved crimes. It is not a simple as it looks on TV and every tool that the police and prosecutors can LEGALLY use should be available to them. Which is why this has to go to the Supreme Court, to rule whether or not it is LEGAL. I believe that they will hear the case and find that it is legal.
MocoLoco
1:56 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Michael--if what you say is true, then why not collect DNA from *everyone*? Next time you go to register your car, they can collect your DNA and put it in that database. My quibble here is that DNA is being collected from suspects, not convicts. The former are still entitled to a presumption of innocence, and in my view, this means they shouldn't have a record created on them.
Joe Thomas
6:01 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Until some criminal breaks into your house and rapes your wife. Then you will be whining that there was no DNA in a database.
MocoLoco
10:18 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Fine, Joe Thomas. If you want to go Kitty/Michael Dukakis on us, then let's go just one tiny step further: Collect it at DMV then, from everyone. Collect it from kids entering Kindergarten, so we have a comprehensive database when they turn 18 and start raping or knifing, or whatever you're afraid of. But, recognize that, once this database exists, it has additional uses beyond comparing to rape kits. And, once some hacker from China, Russia, or even the US infiltrates the database, it's out in public forever. Please don't have a knee-jerk support for this proposal before thinking through its ramifications.
Theresa Defino
1:38 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
The collection and use of personal DNA material can have many uses and not all will be related to law enforcement. Legal and privacy protections are needed. I would not count on this Supreme Court to hash out the nuances of this issue.
Brandie Jefferson
3:01 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
MocoLoco, and everyone, would you feel differently about collecting DNA from convicted criminals? If so, would there need to be a threshold -- say, only from people convicted of violent felonies?
Joe Thomas
6:03 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
That would not make much sense because if they were convicted of a violent felony they would be going away for twenty years or more.
Jason Keyes
9:41 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Collecting from convicted criminals is a different issue and isn't affected by this ruling.
MR6453
7:35 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
Not in THIS state with all the liberal judges..
Jason Keyes
9:40 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
You're right, MocoLoco. The Court of Appeals didn't say the police couldn't collect DNA. They just said they couldn't collect it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. I'm not sure why AG Gansler and other critics of this ruling hate the Fourth Amendment so much.
This search was done without any reasonable basis for doing it. They didn't need to do a DNA test on him in the case he was arrested for. It was literally a fishing expedition. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches..." A search without any reason for searching is...you guessed it: unreasonable.
Joe Thomas
10:26 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012
All you of you hand-wringers please explain why taking fingerprints or photographs at the time of arrest is okay but taking DNA is not. DNA collection is less intrusive than the rolling of fingerprints. It can involve the defendant spitting on a slide or into a cup.
Mike
2:07 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Jails can strip search anyone who is arrested, jails collect fingerprints and photos of anyone who is arrested, the governemnt takes bail money from people who are arrested.
None of this violates the 4th Amendment. Why does DNA suddenly cross the line?
Maybe the law should be changed to require the police to dispose of DNA from people who are innocent. But not allowing them to collect it at all makes no sense given everything else they're allowed to do.
JH
9:49 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Chris Matthews: Time to put this question to the moron meter? Ask those far left loons what they think.
Buck Harmon
9:58 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
Glad to see the Constitutional protection in action... it's the way that the framers intended for things to progress...less government intrusion ... with the intrusion of so many camera's into our lives , I would say that law enforcement has stepped up it's game to push the limits ...as long as we have had laws, we have had criminals of every kind....the more laws we have...the more criminals we have. Wanna reduce the number of criminals?...Reduce the number of laws....bad laws set criminals free as well. Never forget that the system is broken..
Buck Harmon
10:01 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
DNA is much like the Constitution...in that it does work in all directions until it is abused....potential for abuse is the public danger in this case...