A state appeals court decided unanimously Wednesday that California’s practice of taking DNA from people arrested for felonies -- though not necessarily convicted or even charged -- violates the state constitution.The decision, handed down by an appeals panel here, is likely to be appealed to the California Supreme Court.A three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal struck down a portion of a 2004 law passed by voters permitting the state to take and store DNA profiles from people arrested for felonies.Another victory for the American Criminal Liberties U. What is the difference between keeping a DNA profile and keeping fingerprints? Nada. Ridiculous decision but then what else can anyone expect from Judge KlineThe U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a more limited Maryland law under the federal Constitution.But Wednesday’s decision was based on the California Constitution, which specifically gives residents privacy rights.“The California DNA Act intrudes too quickly and too deeply into the privacy interests of arrestees,” Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline wrote for the panel.“The fact that DNA is collected and analyzed immediately after arrest means that some of the arrestees subjected to collection will never be charged, much less convicted, of any crime,” Kline wrote.
nope nope nopeThe ends simply don't justify the means. Violation of the law and a person's privacy is never right
Quote from: Kinder on December 04, 2014, 11:19:51 PMnope nope nopeThe ends simply don't justify the means. Violation of the law and a person's privacy is never rightDo you feel the same way about fingerprint collection?