I am continually shocked and amazed at how easily people give up their God-given rights. Many before us have given their lives to protect these rights - yet others give waiving their rights less thought than choosing Coke or Pepsi. Are these people unaware of their rights or unaware of the danger of surrendering them so easily?

What's the problem, exactly?

Since they're (as I understand from your writeup) asking people to voluntarily do it, where is the unreasonable search or siezure?

So long as those who refuse are not threatened with legal punishment for refusing the search (and as near as I can tell, they aren't), I don't see that there's any more of a 4A issue than a cop asking if he can search your car.

It's never, as far as I understand, and as far as I can glean from reading the Constitution, illegal for the State to ask you if you consent to a search that would be unreasonable if you did not give permission; any search is reasonable, constitutionally, if voluntary.

(I do think it's bloody stupid policing, though, and waste of time. The real rapist will, of course, not allow them to test him, and since that fact would not be admissable in a court, even for purposes of getting a search warrant, it's pointless.)

What the police REALLY want to do is to build their very own DNA database. That's the true aim of this cute little exercise. It really has nothing at all to do with catching this particular criminal.

We all know that the true rapist would never give a DNA sample unless he wanted to be caught. In that case, why not just walk in to the nearest station and turn himself in!

Our legal system runs on the fact that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. What they are inferring with this stunt is that you are guilty until you come in and prove you are innocent by leaving a DNA sample.

Hmmm - think I'll have to go blog a bit more about this, it's one of my pet peeves and not just because it's despicable.

Your points are well taken, Sigivald. The problem we're dithering about here is the slippery slope.

Britons used to have most of those guarantees, but they are losing them. It is now possible for judges to tell juries that they may make inferences from a refusal to answer questions, or submit to testing.

The way to stop that from happening here is to get grumpy early.

I agree. Get grumpy early.

*knock on the door*

"Hi, it's the police. There have been some thefts in town this month, so if you don't mind, we'd like to search your house. No reason for alarm, mind you -- we don't suspect you. We just want to be sure. We'll just go through your rooms and your dresser drawers, take a look at your video collection and the books you have and look through your tax records while we're at it. What? Oh, of course it's voluntary -- we wouldn't dream of violating your rights. But why would you object? Do you have something to hide? Is there a reason we should maybe keep a close eye on you? I mean, after all, if you're innocent, why would you mind us searching? There must be something bothering your conscience. What? Oh, I'm just making some notes - nothing for you to worry about. You're sure you don't want us to search? Well, we'll check back tomorrow just in case you change your mind."

Teresa: Maybe yes, maybe no. Unless you can read minds or have sources we lack, I don't think your claim about what "the police" want is, in this case, likely to be true. (If, on the other hand, you had said something like "some or many law enforcement officials or organisations have expressed a desire to have a DNA database", that would be an entirely different, and accurate, statement. Until, however, I'm given reason to beleive that they're even keeping the samples taken in this case, past testing them against whatever DNA they have to compare with, I'm not buying it as a motive in this case.)

John: On that ground, yes, you are absolutely correct. I was only desirious to make it clear that, whatever other reasons there may be to object to such a practice, it seems to absolutely not be in violation of the fourth amendment. (Though as another point of comparison, all Britons ever had as backbone for their guarantees was common-law tradition, as Britain lacks an actual, proper constitution. The US at least has an extra layer or two of safeguards that have to be broken down before such an usurpation can occur, which gives us some more breathing room.)

For instance, I would be very likely to support an amendment banning a law-enforcement DNA database (or its equivalents); but at the same time, I can't say that one would be unconstitutional under the Constitution as it stands currently.

as a local female, the fact that our police can't find that rapist is scary and sad. I just read an artlicle about the atf, dea, slap, (fed and state) issueing warrant in c'ville for drugs and weapons charges, what are we going to do, wait for the rapist to go national or on federal property before we admit we can't handle this investigation???? and yes, we are apparently building our own little dna database to expedite all future crimes.. just as planners have forced all "risk" neighborhoods into a tight corridor, targeting black neighnboorhoods is typical of local police, unfortunatly the rapists is being profiled by race apparently more than psychologically.