Collecting DNA upon arrest

[GunnyFreedom]

The year before I was elected, my State adopted this abomination. Today, a bill is before me to lengthen the list of crimes from which they can compel and database DNA. House Bill 483:

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h483

I cannot help but to speak against this bill, and here is what I plan to say:


Mr Speaker,

I rise to oppose House Bill 483 expanding the list of felonies for which suspects can be compelled to produce DNA upon arrest.

There is a certain bedrock principle of Liberty in our society which holds the individual inviolate and presumed innocent. During the drafting of the US Constitution, it was understood that the need to violate an individual's right to life, liberty, and property would arise during the course of investigating serious crimes, and thus the 4th and 5th Amendments were adopted laying out the procedures for legally doing so - by court order, and with due process.

According to the 4th Amendment, all American citizens are guaranteed the right to be secure in their persons and possessions except by a judicial warrant that has been sworn upon affidavit, detailing the person and possessions to be taken, and no American may be so deprived except by due process.

If a person can be compelled to produce a DNA sample then they are not secure in their persons. If a person can be compelled to produce a DNA sample without a judicial warrant, then we as a State stand in violation of the US Constitution.

And for those who maybe grate at the 14th Amendment, we don't have to rely on that either. The North Carolina State Constitution lays it out in principles, in Article 1:

§ctn19 No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

§ctn20 General warrants, whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.

§ctn35 A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.



A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.



Is there really any doubt as to the Founders intentions when drafting the 4th and 5th Amendments? It was not to protect the popular but the unpopular. The State is trying to shoot an azimuth but the plumb-bob is out of order. A recurrence to fundamental principles is in order, and that being so I will ask my colleagues to start by voting no on House Bill 483 and help preserve our Republican form of government.

Thank you
Mr. Speaker

[GunnyFreedom]

Session convenes at 9:00 AM tomorrow. 483 is halfway down page 3, I have no idea how long it will be from opening until we hit this bill.

http://ncleg.net/Calendars/CurrentCalendars/CurrentHouseCalendar.pdf

[Matt Collins]

TN has just rejected "legalized" DNA theft upon arrest for all felonies. They rejected it because of popular demand. The Lt. Governor, Ron Ramsey, introduced it and refused to remove his bill after I told him to. In fact he smarted off to me and was quite rude, so I sent out his personal e-mail address and cell phone number to over 30,000 conservative Tennesseans.

He didn't know what hit him! He was getting angry phone calls and e-mails and had no idea why people were so upset about this bill. Then he did a radio interview with a host that I help produce for and he lied to the host on air about his DNA bill. I then sent THAT clip and lie out to the e-mail list. In less than a month's time he killed the bill although he refuses to actually pull the bill for the reason allegedly "just to spite Matt Collins".


He learned a bit of a lesson and got a taste of what's to come over the course of this next election cycle :-)

:D:D:D :collins::collins::collins::collins:

[Vessol]

Glenn, I don't know how you can just sit there calmly while they propose these kind of Orwellian laws. You sir have far more patience than I, for that I salute you.

[madfoot]

I dunno. The libertarian part of me says this is bad, but the part of me that watches Law and Order somewhat disagrees. >_>

[GunnyFreedom]

I dunno. The libertarian part of me says this is bad, but the part of me that watches Law and Order somewhat disagrees. >_>

Ahh yes, the guy on the white horse standing in the light at the end of the tunnel. Too bad such worlds of certitude don't actually exist...

[GunnyFreedom]

If I do not speak, then this bill will pass with overwhelming support. maybe 70/50. This will be my first truly serious attempt to sway votes.

[Vessol]

If I do not speak, then this bill will pass with overwhelming support. maybe 70/50. This will be my first truly serious attempt to sway votes.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again."

[DamianTV]

Can you point out that this "might" be ok if the way that it was written was for an Unappealed Conviction, and not just an arrest? You are so dead on for the Guilty Until Proven Innocent statement that it has earned you a +rep, which doesnt mean jack squat to your constituents, but you should be recognized around here for thinking like the Elected Representative of Free People.

[GunnyFreedom]

Can you point out that this "might" be ok if the way that it was written was for an Unappealed Conviction, and not just an arrest? You are so dead on for the Guilty Until Proven Innocent statement that it has earned you a +rep, which doesnt mean jack squat to your constituents, but you should be recognized around here for thinking like the Elected Representative of Free People.

I see no reason to compel DNA without a warrant. If they can get an arrest warrant, then they can get a DNA warrant too. I might even be able to sign off on this law if it were judicial guidelines for issuing warrants for DNA - I totally support collecting DNA. By judicial warrant. If the facts of the case and a sworn affidavit leads a Judge to believe there is probable cause to compel DNA for an investigation, then issue it at the same time as the arrest warrant. We are after John Doe who we believe murdered this child. Issue arrest and DNA warrants as assailant DNA has been identified. Cop walks up to John Doe with both warrants in hand. That's due process.

No DNA without a warrant. (or consent)

The Constitutional principle doesn't allow for an exception there, really.

[DamianTV]

I like the idea that requiring a separate DNA warrant at the same time as a Search Warrant because it specifies that DNA itself is the thing to be searched or seized, as warrants are supposed to do, as specified in the 4th "... detailing the person and possessions to be taken ...". Like downloading MP3's or something should not result in a DNA database of the accused pirate, just for being accused. Man, you are my new freakin hero!

[GunnyFreedom]

I like the idea that requiring a separate DNA warrant at the same time as a Search Warrant because it specifies that DNA itself is the thing to be searched or seized, as warrants are supposed to do, as specified in the 4th "... detailing the person and possessions to be taken ...". Like downloading MP3's or something should not result in a DNA database of the accused pirate, just for being accused. Man, you are my new freakin hero!

As much as I appreciate it, the honorable ladies and gentlemen from North Carolina won't be so kind 6 hours from now. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

I hate I when I only get 90min sleep. thank God its Thursday

[jmdrake]

I see no reason to compel DNA without a warrant. If they can get an arrest warrant, then they can get a DNA warrant too. I might even be able to sign off on this law if it were judicial guidelines for issuing warrants for DNA - I totally support collecting DNA. By judicial warrant. If the facts of the case and a sworn affidavit leads a Judge to believe there is probable cause to compel DNA for an investigation, then issue it at the same time as the arrest warrant. We are after John Doe who we believe murdered this child. Issue arrest and DNA warrants as assailant DNA has been identified. Cop walks up to John Doe with both warrants in hand. That's due process.

No DNA without a warrant. (or consent)

The Constitutional principle doesn't allow for an exception there, really.

Then add this to your speech. Sometimes when you can't totally kill a bill, you can at least make it constitutionally acceptable. Here in Tennessee they're pushing for a "material support of terrorism" bill. The original text of the bill specifically singled out Muslims. I emailed one of the main people pushing the bill my concerns and her first response was "You've just been fooled by the media spin". Then I told her "I haven't read anything on the bill except for what you put out in your email and I find the actual text of the bill objectionable. But if you changed it so that it wouldn't target any group and it better defined what 'intent to support terrorism' is, it wouldn't be so bad". The current version of the bill that went through committee has the changes I suggested. Oh she tried to claim a "moral victory" by saying the changes were only motivated by "distortions by the media". That's fine. I don't care why these people change what they do as long as the do change what they do.

Oh, does the original version of the bill have any provision for what happens to the DNA after someone is acquitted? In Tennessee Ron Ramsey tried to get one over by falsely claiming the DNA would be destroyed if the defendant was later acquitted. But he left out the fact that the TBI already shares its DNA database with the feds. Who cares if your state investigative agency destroys the DNA if its now in the federal database? Also would it be at all helpful to your republican counterparts to point out that they are helping Obama's agenda?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCa9-AmfLi8

[Matt Collins]

If I do not speak, then this bill will pass with overwhelming support. maybe 70/50. This will be my first truly serious attempt to sway votes.
You're not going to sway any votes (or at least not enough to make any difference in the outcome probably).

BUT you need to get yourself on record as not only voting against this atrocity, but being VOCALLY opposed to this atrocity.

[UtahApocalypse]

I see no reason to compel DNA without a warrant. If they can get an arrest warrant, then they can get a DNA warrant too. I might even be able to sign off on this law if it were judicial guidelines for issuing warrants for DNA - I totally support collecting DNA. By judicial warrant. If the facts of the case and a sworn affidavit leads a Judge to believe there is probable cause to compel DNA for an investigation, then issue it at the same time as the arrest warrant. We are after John Doe who we believe murdered this child. Issue arrest and DNA warrants as assailant DNA has been identified. Cop walks up to John Doe with both warrants in hand. That's due process.

No DNA without a warrant. (or consent)

The Constitutional principle doesn't allow for an exception there, really.

Is there a way you can still motion to add an amendment? This would be a good start.

Another thing though I dislike about these DNA things is that they now have a permanent record. Can this DNA be used in futire cases? If so how does that not violate the 4th and 5th for that event. I take that the 4th and 5th are for each individual charge a person gets. Also having DNA on file you serve a sentence much longer then the judge gives you.... a sentence of life with your DNA on file.

[GunnyFreedom]

Is there a way you can still motion to add an amendment? This would be a good start.

Another thing though I dislike about these DNA things is that they now have a permanent record. Can this DNA be used in futire cases? If so how does that not violate the 4th and 5th for that event. I take that the 4th and 5th are for each individual charge a person gets. Also having DNA on file you serve a sentence much longer then the judge gives you.... a sentence of life with your DNA on file.

This bill is changes to an existing law, there is no good way to amend this bill to make it right.

PS. Audio is at

http://ncleg.net/Audio/Audio.html

This bill is up next. 4 mins maybe

[GunnyFreedom]

I skipped big chunks of it because I felt like I was running long

[GunnyFreedom]

Went from 4 lights to 8 so more ppl are talking

[GunnyFreedom]

Displaced for a fiscal note. My speech will be better next time

[Captain Shays]

"If a person can be compelled to produce a DNA sample without a judicial warrant, then we as a State stand in violation of the US Constitution."

I am even morally opposed to being compelled to give your blood by force even if they produce a warrant. It's an invasion of the inside of your body. There is just something creepy about the cops, holding a person down and forcing a needle into their vein to draw their blood out. I understand that DNA is an important tool for investigators but there must be a better way. Maybe hair? Saliva?

[GunnyFreedom]

"If a person can be compelled to produce a DNA sample without a judicial warrant, then we as a State stand in violation of the US Constitution."

I am even morally opposed to being compelled to give your blood by force even if they produce a warrant. It's an invasion of the inside of your body. There is just something creepy about the cops, holding a person down and forcing a needle into their vein to draw their blood out. I understand that DNA is an important tool for investigators but there must be a better way. Maybe hair? Saliva?

Nowadays, DNA is generally drawn by rubbing a cotton swab inside the cheek. Compared to hypodermic, it is way less invasive.

[Pericles]

I agree with your stance for all of the reasons you have stated. I can only add the following - maybe a suggested amendment that anone who knowing makes a false statement in order to have a warrant issued or issues a warrant based on a statement known to be false shall be guilty of a felony. Idea being to hold officials accountable for their actions. That may lead to some second thoughts about this.

[aclove]

Justin Burr should be getting some calls about this today. Not sure how many, but I just spammed the crap out of this bill all over Facebook.

[GunnyFreedom]

Justin Burr should be getting some calls about this today. Not sure how many, but I just spammed the crap out of this bill all over Facebook.

Burr's not going to change his mind. try talking to everybody else.

[GunnyFreedom]

UPDATE:

Glen Bradley called "uber-libertatian" for DNA-bill vote in the Raleigh paper of record:

Kinks remain in DNA bill:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/29/1161502/legislators-could-face-a-perdue.html

reposted from the N&O's "Under The Dome" blog project where the argument was described per the US Constitution:

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/bill_would_expand_collecting_dna_samples

[JVParkour]

Nice work Glen! I saw Tim Moore at the Tea Party in my local area, and I asked if he knew you. Haha, keep up the good work.

[GunnyFreedom]

Nice work Glen! I saw Tim Moore at the Tea Party in my local area, and I asked if he knew you. Haha, keep up the good work.

LOL what did he say? He seems receptive to some good parts of the philosophy.

[Working Poor]

God Gunny fight with all your might I wish we could get a petition together its a little short notice.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then add this to your speech. Sometimes when you can't totally kill a bill, you can at least make it constitutionally acceptable. Here in Tennessee they're pushing for a "material support of terrorism" bill. The original text of the bill specifically singled out Muslims. I emailed one of the main people pushing the bill my concerns and her first response was "You've just been fooled by the media spin". Then I told her "I haven't read anything on the bill except for what you put out in your email and I find the actual text of the bill objectionable. But if you changed it so that it wouldn't target any group and it better defined what 'intent to support terrorism' is, it wouldn't be so bad". The current version of the bill that went through committee has the changes I suggested. Oh she tried to claim a "moral victory" by saying the changes were only motivated by "distortions by the media". That's fine. I don't care why these people change what they do as long as the do change what they do.

Oh, does the original version of the bill have any provision for what happens to the DNA after someone is acquitted? In Tennessee Ron Ramsey tried to get one over by falsely claiming the DNA would be destroyed if the defendant was later acquitted. But he left out the fact that the TBI already shares its DNA database with the feds. Who cares if your state investigative agency destroys the DNA if its now in the federal database? Also would it be at all helpful to your republican counterparts to point out that they are helping Obama's agenda?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCa9-AmfLi8

By the way, I did add it to my speech, on the fly. It was a good addendum, it said "I'm not being obstinant and stupid here, let's solve your problem, just lets do it the right way."

[GunnyFreedom]

You're not going to sway any votes (or at least not enough to make any difference in the outcome probably).

BUT you need to get yourself on record as not only voting against this atrocity, but being VOCALLY opposed to this atrocity.


I dunno, the vote was 83-21 in a Democrat House when they passed the original law, and I had a lot of Republicans coming up to me later to privately agree with me. With the bipartisan 'feel' of it, I'd say that any deviation from 83-21 in a positive direction is a victory. We will see when it hits the floor again. Representative Burr will actually be prepared to counter-argue my points at that time, so there will be even more fireworks.

[Melissa]

You are doing great things Gunny if every statehouse was filled with people like you we would not have to worry about Federal government..keep up the good work

[JVParkour]

LOL what did he say? He seems receptive to some good parts of the philosophy.

Haha, he mentioned how you got on TV for your Sound Money legislation, and he mentioned how he joked around with you about it. He seems like a pretty cool guy. The vibe I got from him about you was that he liked you, and was suprised by the level of your support.

[TNforPaul45]

TN has just rejected "legalized" DNA theft upon arrest for all felonies. They rejected it because of popular demand. The Lt. Governor, Ron Ramsey, introduced it and refused to remove his bill after I told him to. In fact he smarted off to me and was quite rude, so I sent out his personal e-mail address and cell phone number to over 30,000 conservative Tennesseans.

He didn't know what hit him! He was getting angry phone calls and e-mails and had no idea why people were so upset about this bill. Then he did a radio interview with a host that I help produce for and he lied to the host on air about his DNA bill. I then sent THAT clip and lie out to the e-mail list. In less than a month's time he killed the bill although he refuses to actually pull the bill for the reason allegedly "just to spite Matt Collins".


He learned a bit of a lesson and got a taste of what's to come over the course of this next election cycle :-)

:D:D:D :collins::collins::collins::collins:

One thing Is for sure: we tenneseans can get qute angry and unified when we want. Good thing Ramsey didnt try to raise taxes too haha!

[GunnyFreedom]

Haha, he mentioned how you got on TV for your Sound Money legislation, and he mentioned how he joked around with you about it. He seems like a pretty cool guy. The vibe I got from him about you was that he liked you, and was suprised by the level of your support.

Yeah, there is a lot of that in Raleigh. It's abnormal for a State legislator to be connected to a real State-wide network, for one thing.

[aclove]

Any idea when this will be put back on the calendar? I can do a state-wide C4L email about it if I've got 4 days or so to work with.

[GunnyFreedom]

Any idea when this will be put back on the calendar? I can do a state-wide C4L email about it if I've got 4 days or so to work with.

Monday maybe. depends on the fiscal note.

[Working Poor]

Gunny-

thank you so much for all you do.