Post by jackydee on Sept 26, 2016 8:21:24 GMT
I believe it would be illegal. Apart from codis the fishing for dna links to catch felons is illegal. I suspect the wording in prop 69 points this out. Any half decent criminal defense lawyer will ask a judge to make sure the dna is thrown out as evidence before trial as it has been improperly used; any reasonable judge would probably grant them this. DNA evidence is then inadmissible as prosecution evidence. What does the prosecution then have left as evidence in a trial? Probably the guys geographic movements, penis size and hair/eye color. This remaining evidence will almost certainly not be enough to bring a prosecution against the suspect let alone a conviction.
I agree that putting ear's dna through a database such as ancestry.com may help LE put a name to ear. But a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Im sure the suspect(and other innocent people who have their dna on ancestry.com) will immediately suggest their dna has been improperly used. I will say right now: dozens of individuals on the ancestry.com site, and the owners of the site themselves, will successfully sue any Californian prosecutor that uses the dna this way. LE will lose their jobs, counties will go near bankrupt through legal costs and compensation, any prosecution of ear will be as good as ruined. I can see the common sense argument for using ancestry.com, but to do so is highly illegal. This imo is why it hasn't been done not due to any conspiracy by LE.
Im struggling to explain the legalese here. A good comparison may be the right of a householder not to have their home raided by LE without good justification or cause. LE must have reasonable suspicion before raiding a home. Well, peoples dna is kinda similar. Their dna is on a site legally. People have every right for their dna not to be looked at by LE when there is absolutely no evidence they committed a crime.