Woman Arrested After Her Rape Kit DNA Was Used Against Her

[@MysticWanderer]

No matter anyone's thoughts on the particular case, this case shines a light on what is happening. If the woman had not had this happen it might not have been publicly known that victim DNA is being retained and searched for unrelated issues. Yet another waypoint on the slippery slope.

[@xblackdog]

It's depression how many people don't understand that... This is just one case of them actually finding someone who's rights they violated, that committed a crime. Prior to this it can be safely assumed that they've run hundreds if not thousands of victims DNA. That's not to even mention the fact that law enforcement screws up on a regular basis. They're just as likely to falsely charge someone as not using illegal DNA samples.

[@JTBlotzer]

Unfortunately this story should come as a surprise to know one.

[@bindingcurve]

@@xblackdog Not hard to verify with a blood draw.

[@phanx0m924]

YUP

[@keinlieb3818]

It's also come to light the the government keeps a database of your fingerprints as well. Are we also going to come up with a law so that the government can't collect your fingerprints? They also have a database of people's faces. You care to comment on that or is it just the DNA is where you draw the line? Government can keep databases of your phone calls, fingerprints, pictures, internet searches/data transmissions, etc but better keep your hands off my DNA.

[@guardrailbiter]

SFPD: "Ya know, some women are already reluctant to submit to a rape kit after an assault. How can we make it worse?"

[@jamescaron6465]

If the government can use something, they can also misuse something. Generally speaking that’s what usually happens 99.999% of the time.

[@jamesduncan6729]

So true.

[@src3360]

Could not have worded it better 🙏🏼

[@TerribleFire]

In this case its like she mailed them her fingerprints then the left fingerprints on something while she committed a crime and is complaining about it. I mean get real. Do the crime do the time. I'm really anti-cop but this is really stupid. She handed them this on a plate.

[@charlesdoyle3630]

@@TerribleFire To solve her Rape. Steve made it very clear that what was done was questionally unethical by law enforcement. Timothy Masters would not have done a day if the lead investigator or prosecutor were not pieces of shit. This is one example of a slippery slope and could easily be you. Think about it. Since 1973 283 people have been released from jail that were innocent. And those are the ones we know. And we have no idea if she is actually guilty of what she supppsedly did.

[@glennbeadshaw727]

If it can be used to their advantage then they're going to do it but often it does work for the better good for everybody

[@laforce36]

You are right about being ran through the system. In many cases, that's all that needs to happen to prohibit someone from employment because background checks often only put arrest records, not court records. Back in 2007 I was 18, I was arrested for Felony Terrorist threats, now called Criminal threats. Another person had shoved me and wanted to fight me. Being 18 and and a bit hot headed, I said "leave me alone or I'll break your neck." I then left because I actually did not want a confrontation. I was arrested for this and held in the county jail for 2 weeks. When it came time to see the Judge, I was given an option to plea no contest to several different misdemeanors or not guilty and my trial date would be set a year and a half away.... mind you my bail was set at 500k and I was a first time offender. The Judge even knew I was still in High School and said to take the deal. I wasn't qualified for a lawyer at the time (determined based off of family income) so it was just me. Looking back now, I wish I knew what I did now, because I would have just plead not guilty. One I had no idea the police report didn't even mention my "crime" nor did it record the name of my "victim." I had no idea that there were no cameras operational at the time either. The only thing I even said to police was an acknowledgment of my name and I refused to answer questions beyond that. I joined the Army in 2009, had to go through a lengthy interview process with Army CID and the FBI because unbeknownst to me, I was labeled a terrorist in the FBIs system. So naturally they were interested in why a terrorist wanted to join the Army lol. Spent 8 years in the Army. Now, I've been a licensed Insurance Agent, that also had to go through a lengthy process as well. Couldn't become a Police Officer because I had been charged with a Felony (dismissed). Even though while in the Army, I served on protection details of high ranking government officials. When getting a CCW it comes up. It's 2022 and I still have to explain a dismissed charge. A lot of people don't know that just being charged can bring a lot of stress on someone.

[@genossinwaabooz4373]

So true. I'm one of those examples of : speeding ticket > unpaid, thought it was but cycling was my thing, didn't come up > can't renew DL > tried to fix it > DL suspended for unpaid fine > discover 12 parking tickets for vehicle i don't own but they claim i did hence tickets > clear that up > pay unpaid fine > DL still not cleared > by no fault of my own end up homeless (evacuated mold outbreak home, rent insurance excluded this specific kind of damage, take Landlord to court, winning only gets me out of there free of owing $ but I get no help cuz proving mold takes science $$$$) > drive only to get A to B living out of car > ticket driving on Susp DL > unpaid fine = DL suspended > can't make payment plan, like used to be allowed, I hear > bf works FT we're homeless, conserve/save...> ticket again for same + expired tabs > admin change tabs to "driving DL revoked" never happened, not true > can't get answer how to fix this > same ticket in next state 2x > #2 they arrest me 3 weeks AFTER citation that has the required appearance date already right on it! > more complete bs..... > stopped ever driving but still live in van so just suffer, though now i can hardly walk b/c disability. No one cares but some regular folks in the town are very supportive. I wonder if the bogus arrest is to sully my record. Was so unecessary. Being homeless = constant harrassment. Daily but can be many times per day. No reason, just messing w you tho you're doing the right things. It's all TRAPS for the poor. I was doing great...then I was made poor. So many system fails...regular people don't have a hoard of $$$$$ to defend against all this. System working as intended - we call it "broken".

[@robertadams8192]

If you are ever arrested and jailed, even if charges are not pressed and you are quickly released, you have an arrest and being jailed on your record (and the reason for). You will have to hire a lawyer and spend lot of money to have these things expunged ... even though you committed no crime!

[@racer72]

My step daughter accused me of something I did not do. Instead of arresting me, the responding officer knew nothing happened but said he had to file a report, this needed to include my fingerprints. He gave me 3 days to come to the precinct. A few weeks later, the case was dropped and my step daughter was cited for filing a false report. A month later the original officer stopped by the house and gave me a file to destroy. It had his report and my fingerprints. My prints were never processed so there are none on file with the state.

[@Sabarok]

It's nice to see that pretty much every party involved realised really quickly how much of a problem this was, and even the legislature was already moving to pass a law to stop this. If only Civil Asset Forfeiture could be fixed that quickly.

[@TheCaptainmojo1973]

Civil asset forfeiture is simply theft, and asking the thieves (govt officials) if they feel like their unlawful practice should be ended is like asking the fox if he should be allowed to guard the henhouse.

[@3PercentNeanderthal]

Too much money involved with civil forfeiture for it to change.

[@DJVIIIMan]

: I'm honestly surprised they did the right thing here. Usually, it takes a lawsuit to get them act right.

[@metamorphicorder]

Its because people are more interested in virtue signalling over womens issues than they are about actually protecting human rights.

[@AggressiveLemur]

@@metamorphicorder bro, you are telling on yourself, to almost everyone else women's issues are human rights, as women are humans

[@bobverick]

DNA from a rape victim should never go into a data base. Aside from being tasteless, this would be an obstacle for victims to come forward, leaving predators to roam freely.

[@Relkond]

it’s the whole ‘drug dealers don’t go to the police’ thing, just in a different context.

[@ErikaEmody]

Thank you. 🙏💙🙏

[@mercdragons]

Why? Should one criminal get away with a crime why another criminal gets sent to jail? If the cops were smarter they should have kept it quiet about how they suspected her of this crime. Just go to her house on trash day grab her trash get DNA from her trash that matches. Get a warrant for everyone in the house because they have evidence that a person in that house is the wanted for a crime. Boom easy.

[@chrissinclair4442]

That's probably why they put it in the database.

[@Drunkenvalley]

@@mercdragons Jesus fuck. "Why?" you ask, then you suggest the police go ahead and just break the fucking law. Clearly, the law isn't very important to you after all.

[@smithwilliamn7090]

Reality is the government has at least 20 sets of my fingerprints from employment, licensing and being in the army. DNA can be traced back to me from my mother and sisters doing that Ancestry test. My problem in Columbus, Ohio is when pulled over the record tech tells the officer I have a police "I.D. Number." The ASSumption is the I.D. number was generated from being arrested as opposed the background check being generated from being a licensed city taxi driver.

[@src3360]

I wondered about this as well. Im a nurse and was required to get a level 2 background check before taking state boards. Most of my immediate family have done the DNA testing as well

[@michaelmoore7975]

Military takes DNA as well.

[@Iceberg86300]

@@michaelmoore7975 which is _supposed_ to only be used to identify remains. But who knows whether or not the regs are adhered to. "Greater good" & national security justify a lot of things to a lot of people/agencies/judges. e.g., FISA courts and whatnot do some fucking shady shit.!

[@jasonpatterson8091]

Every person who works in a school anywhere is in the same situation, from lunch ladies up to principals.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

@@michaelmoore7975 At least the military doesn't share their DNA database with law enforcement (in theory...yet). On the downside, they're keeping samples for at least 75 years because "it's impractical to dispose of them at discharge." They can afford bombs but not someone to sort through samples and destroy them...

[@FourthRoot]

Any prosecutor who fails to realize that this sort of abuse will deter victims from cooperating with rape investigations should be punished by catapult.

[@herculesbrofister265]

For once texas will be looking to Ca like "that there's what we need to do"

[@anderwmarcell9503]

Maybe that is the reason

[@MeppyMan]

or have their DNA taken and used against them if needed.

[@brentfarvors192]

They can see it; They just dont care...They are there to get convictions/carreer advancement ("I had a %98 conviction ratio with the state..."); Ethics plays no part in prosecutions...

[@FourthRoot]

@@brentfarvors192 You're giving them too much credit. Remember Hanlan's razor.

[@LMacNeill]

"If you don't commit any crimes, you've got nothing to worry about" is the same thing these idiots say when you tell them that the 4th amendment is important. I don't commit crimes, either, but I'm damn sure not opening my home to law enforcement unless they have a warrant!

[@captcorajus]

The ONLY thing her DNA at the crime scene says is that at some time she was there, it does not prove she committed a crime.

[@user-de2wv8ri8n]

I am still trying to figure out an issue here. I assume some law states dna from r kits will be used to match other cases. Which is the case here. Like she went and got dna taken from her for crime x and Oo and behold it was seen at crime y.

[@glee21012]

Yeah but now she is suspect, still is ass pain.

[@megalodon1726]

In some situations the location and source of the DNA can be strong evidence that she committed a crime (although it usually won't be sufficient for a conviction by itself). For example, suppose there were fresh drops of blood on the glass and frame of a broken window of a burglarized house where the thief apparently entered through the window, and DNA tests prove that it was her blood.

[@captcorajus]

@@user-de2wv8ri8n So, you go to a place. 2 years later there's a crime there. They use DNA they acquired during your sexual assault investigation 4 years earlier to try and attach you to the crime.

[@user-de2wv8ri8n]

@@captcorajus yes it’s called an investigation. What because she a women all passed crime should not be investigated and charged if there is enough evidence?

[@RobertSzasz]

"I don't commit crimes" is almost never true. Nobody even knows how many things are defined as crimes, let alone if they committed any.

[@spidalack]

It also tends to be said by politicians who have clearly committed a lot of them and are using the power/money they have to shield themselves from the consequences. Maybe that's who we should apply that standard to.

[@greggleason8467]

The book “Three felonies a day” is a great reference point

[@carrerasrivera]

well... after more than 80,000 new IRS agents we will see if that is true. Are you sure you didn't commit any crimes?

[@b_uppy]

'Commit' Commit- def (vb): To bind or obligate oneself, as by pledge or assurance; devote or engage oneself to a person or thing. In the very least she is saying she was saying it was accidental rather than intentional as her use of the word means...

[@SeanBZA]

Remember there are crimes today that never existed 2 decades ago. Cyberterrorist, black hat hacker, amongst many others, so just because something is legal now, does not mean it will stay that way.

[@Zavyyn]

I've seen enough stories about DNA mismatches from consumer genetics firms to say I would not want my DNA on record without a compelling reason.

[@briankulesz9410]

I refuse to do one of those DNA tests that tell you your family history or for underlying medical conditions. I would suspect the police have access to that information if they don't already.

[@finkelmana]

@@briankulesz9410 Generally, the police dont have access to the "consumer" DNA databases. Most of the big ones have been hit with lawsuits, that they all decided they will not share the data without a court order or there may be an imminent threat to someone.

[@finkelmana]

The "consumer" DNA companies really are a joke. They do the cheapest, low accuracy tests possible. There is a great news story somewhere on YT, but it goes like this. A woman sends her DNA to 5 of the top consumer DNS sites (23 and me, etc). All 5 gave her different information. Now that alone is interesting, but here is the kicker: Her *IDENTICAL* twin sister did it as well. They share the exact same DNA. Not only did her twin sister get different results from each company, they had different results from the *SAME* company.

[@mf--]

@@finkelmana That is how they caught the Golden State Killer (r, murder, etc) and turns out he was a cop.

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

@@finkelmana It's also getting more popular these days for people to get DNA testing on their dogs and cats. Some animal breed registries are now requiring this testing, too. But if it's not accurate....?

[@hicknopunk]

Never accept a drink during an interrogation unless you want them to process your DNA

[@FoldupKibbles26]

Drink the water, then eat the cup. Besides is that cup \ dna thing true? Couldn't they just as easily get it off of the handcuffs or any other surface like a pen after they make you sign a document that you must sign?

[@brentfarvors192]

@@FoldupKibbles26 Yes, and No; A DNA test requires body fluids (saliva etc...), and, unless you sweat or cry into the cup...

[@brentfarvors192]

You can accept the drink, as long as you take the cup with you while leaving..."You can throw your trash in here...?" "No thanks, I am trying to save the planet by reusing cups, and I recycle aluminum cans. I will add it to my bag..."

[@brianr8581]

If your being interagated it's probably a safe bet your not leaving Brent lol

[@brentfarvors192]

@@brianr8581 SURE I WILL...Because I DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS!!!...If they had enough to arrest you, there wouldn't be an interrogation...

[@tomperkins6389]

Yes, you're run through the system and charges are dropped. Your life is changed forever; you may be fired for taking time off and the lingering suspicion that there was some reason for your arrest. On a lesser note a cop gives you a ticket that you know is bogus but you have to go to court to fight it taking time off from work, perhaps paying an attorney. The ticket is dismissed but you've been "fined" regardless by the amount of time and money lost. The cop laughs.

[@chanceharmon6491]

Well in this case there was infact a reason for the arrest. She did do the crime they just didn't prosecute for moral reasons.

[@johngatsby1473]

And they make you pay to have your records expunged of the wrongful address otherwise it stays with you

[@GoldenSun3DS]

The problem you menion of being fired for time off is a problem of Capitalism, where if you're not being productive, you don't deserve to exist and should just go homeless and starve to death. Hardcore Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. (No, China is not Communist. Just because I criticize Capitalism doesn't mean I like China/Russia/North Korea, etc)

[@chanceharmon6491]

@@GoldenSun3DS the Chinese political party in power is called the Chinese communist party .....

[@triimages1621]

Did you miss the part that she is a burglar? If she had been in prison, she wouldn’t have had to do a rape kit.

[@rjhikes6248]

I recently had to have a medical procedure where they would sample my DNA. The fine print included permission to release my DNA to a list of law enforcement and anti-terrorism databases as well as “workman’s compensation agents. Seriously. Needless to say I told them where they could stick it.

[@ttripp69]

I'm surprised they did the procedure without you completely submitting to the paperwork!?

[@peggyh8937]

Outrageous!

[@williamrose7184]

You’re under no obligation to sign any paperwork

[@GKsGS400]

How can we never commit crimes when everything is illegal?

[@wesleyhoward5599]

That's the way the government wants it. You piss off the wrong person, they'll get you for something.

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

And why do you think that is as such?

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

Not everything is illegal; just enough things to make us all criminals. A hawk preens itself on your backyard tree; one of its feathers falls to the ground. The bird flies off, and is no longer in possession of the feather. It is illegal in the U.S. to possess feathers of raptors (or perhaps, of any wild bird-- I'm not sure if the latter is true). But you now possess contraband, because the feather is lying in your backyard. Don't even think about picking it up and using it in a craft project! If you throw it in the trash, better wear gloves and be really careful you don't get your DNA on it. Oh, and the trash bin had better already be out in the street so you can deny having anything to do with it. AND... don't forget to turn off your security cameras; they might show you picking up the feather.

[@billh.1940]

Just do it, then run! We don't have any rights anymore!, If charged demand a jury trial! More likely to beat rap! Sue city and cops, press charges against da, make it too costly to prosecute!

[@paytonyoder1260]

I didn’t realize breathing was made illegal. Quick, stop breathing.

[@JV-pu8kx]

The military collects the DNA of its members. UCMJ restricts its use to identification of remains. (According to _JAG._ )

[@chadwells7562]

If you gave it to them, the FBI, CIA, and Russian / Chinese intelligence have it too

[@danielweston9188]

They can get access to a single record but only with a warrant upon probable cause. They can't do a general search of the data.

[@maxsdad538]

All we had to do during Vietnam was give them our fingerprints and, if you were a flier, give them your footprints (your feet would typically survive a plane crash). And, of course, they had your dental records.

[@chadwells7562]

@@maxsdad538 Because DNA testing wasn’t a thing in the 60s/70s

[@brentfarvors192]

Yeah, RIGHT!!! If you actually believe that BS, I've got a booster for you...

[@adamrasmussen9939]

This is insane. When I saw the title, I was trying to come up with scenarios where it wasn't as bad as it sounded. I was thinking like maybe the donor sample belonged to an underage minor, and it turned out she was assaulted by someone younger than her and it got flipped on her somehow. This is MUCH crazier, and perhaps somehow even worse. To take a victims genetic code, and to leave it in the criminal database 'just in case they need it' sounds like a massive overreach just on it's face.

[@skipperclinton1087]

Adam when a person goes to prison their DNA is taken, entered into a database to see if they were involved in a prior crime or for possible future use. You probably are already saying but yea they're a criminal but that's only an academic point. You lose all your other constitutional rights too. Same way with probation for a misdemeanor. You're subject to search and seizure at any time without a reason. No 4th amendment rights.

[@ronaldmayle1823]

@@skipperclinton1087 But the rape victim was never convicted or plead guilty to a crime.

[@skipperclinton1087]

@@ronaldmayle1823 Ron that's just an academic point. Just like when you join the military and they fingerprint you. Those fingerprints are kept in an FBI database and just because you do your time & get out they're always saved by the FBI and whoever else. I guess you missed that point about the DNA. Do you think that if your DNA is collected to clear you of a crime it's discarded? If so, you're really naive. That isn't the way big Bro works. Just like your SSN, originally is was supposed to be used just for SS purposes, not as an identification number because technically under law a Nat'l ID isn't supposed to exist. That's why the Voter ID argument is ridiculous. Only if you're in the US illegally you don't have one. Even if you apply for a tourist Visa to the US you need to supply a national ID number from your country of origin. Sorry, off on a tangent. I didn't have to get one until I got my 1st real job at 16-17, not even for my DL. It used to be on your DL along with your DL number. It's still in the system though attached to your DL number. That's how they see if you're wanted anywhere in the world when your DL number is run. Now they assign you one at birth and way back when they only used your footprints on your original hospital birth certificate. Now my understanding is they also fingerprint you at birth. You must be young and don't understand how the govt has changed in the last 40-50 years. Eventually if it isn't already attached facial recognition will go along with your SSN. I'm not saying it's right but that's the way it is. Here's a heads up. I got into a fight in 8/69, charges dropped, never even went before a judge. Fast forward to 2014. I applied for a AZ state CCW and because it was a battery charge I had to go back to that county in CA to get a copy of the arrest record and disposition of the case. The county didn't even have a record of me ever being arrested but it came up during an FBI/NICS search. I still had to have an official letter from the county specifying it. Are you a little clearer on it now? Don't EVER voluntarily give up your DNA and if you're arrested for a suspected DUI don't opt for a blood test either. The DNA will go into that database too.

[@ronaldmayle1823]

@@skipperclinton1087 Do you really think that I had the time or interest to read that monologue? She was a rape victim. Just be glad that it wasn't your sister or other family member.

[@brentfarvors192]

Think this is bad??? DNA cloning is right around the corner...If not already a possibility...

[@Ty3516]

This is such a fundamental betrayal of trust i dont even know where to begin

[@lateboomer3640]

Steve has a way of making me change my mind when I didn't see it coming. Thanks for your perspective and knowledge Steve.

[@deandake9041]

I refuse to do any of those family dna tests just because I do not want my dna floating out there. Never can tell what some nefarious individual may want with it.

[@robertmcnearny9222]

Your DNA probably already is.

[@SalemikTUBE]

That's no protection at all. If any member of your family does take part or is accused of a crime and has DNA taken, they have in fact got your DNA. There are very many people in jail because some distant cousin they have never met got tied up in something.

[@zazuch]

the bad part is if a relative does it and cops have access to it then they can at least get close to you via theirs.

[@Conflict_Boardgaming]

Exactly. Only fools willfully give away their DNA. One has no idea what would, or could, be done with the DNA. What if your DNA is found at a crime scene that you had nothing to do with? You're fucked!

[@glintinggold]

I'm trying to get a close relative to do a DNA test before he dies, and my elders won't allow it. The family is religious so I have no idea what they're afraid of. You'd think Mormons would be more gung-ho about their ancestry since they're such genealogists. And I know them very well, they don't do anything like mischief or drugs, they're all totally whitebread milkfed and sanctified. Frankly I'm the black sheep and I have mine online! The laws should accommodate us, not the other way around.

[@tippyc2]

A lot of my family did the genealogy dna thing. I got laughed at when i tried to point out they were sacrificing my privacy by doing that.

[@eldiablo7862]

Sounds like someone is worried about a previous DNA drop.

[@Rx7man]

I'm glad all my immediate family are of the same opinion

[@specialsause949]

@@eldiablo7862 it sounds more like someone is worried that the government will mishandle information they have because the ALWAYS do. That's the same rationale of "why did you hire a lawyer if you're innocent? "Why not let the cops search your house if you're innocent?" Because it's my right, that's why.

[@russellsmejkal304]

Yah what your family dose not understand is that criminals have been found using that maybe they should see that so you should look it up and show them

[@bobnob3496]

Of course they laughed at you, you're a clown

[@gshalabama]

There will come a day when DNA will be collected at birth and a Social Security Number assigned to that DNA and not the person.

[@brentfarvors192]

Only if WE allow it..."Safe, and effective"...In other words; Were screwed!!!

[@princessrose17]

law enforcement should NOT be able to use any victim DNA for anything EVER.!!! Except to convict the perpetrator of the crime against the victim. Their DNA should NEVER be saved in a searchable database!

[@seanlance]

There are non-criminal ways a DNA sample can be left at what would eventually become the scene of a crime. DNA evidence doesn't always mean "guilty".

[@glintinggold]

As long as it doesn't inadvertently get entered into a criminal database.

[@brentfarvors192]

Yes, but, it forces the burden of proof back onto the person...."What was your DNA doing at a robbery...?"

[@joez.2794]

You'll usually be given the opportunity to furnish your "perfectly reasonable explanation" for why your DNA was there. If you can't or won't or the cops didn't like your answer, cu in court.

[@iknklst]

@@joez.2794 You NEVER give LE "your perfectly reasonable explanation". You keep your mouth shut and lawyer up. It's up to LE and the state to prove you were at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was being committed. It's your attonrney's job to inform the court as to why they found your DNA at the scene and that he can prove you were elswhere when any crime was committed at that location.

[@brentfarvors192]

Let's be honest; It's a huge step in that direction...It places the burdon of innocence back on the accused..."You explain why your dna was @ the scene??? I cant??? Because you did it!!!" Beyond a reasonable doubt; There is no other reason for it to be there...?

[@rockeerockey6941]

When you send your DNA swab to the origin labs, it is not only stored forever but it's now owned by the lab. Essentially, your DNA is no longer yours

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

If only that meant the police cannot use it...

[@billh.1940]

Labs sell information!

[@russellsmejkal304]

Yah that’s why you need to read the fine print but the government should see that as a violation in the first place but because they use it to get criminals the government doesn’t care to make a law against it because it benefits them in the end

[@rockeerockey6941]

@@russellsmejkal304 You must know that Congress is always 20 years behind with legislation, I'd cite immigration and abortion as 2 which are 50 years past due. Besides Congress is wholly owned by the corporate chieftains

[@alentrav]

This is exactly why I will never trust any so-called "authority figure" at all. The whole system is just plain broken

[@bobsaturday4273]

is it the "system" so much as the scumbags and punks with authority that abuse it for their own gain or just plain ego

[@shawnmiller4781]

@@bobsaturday4273 Aren’t those people called politicians and campaign donors?

[@Traderjoe]

My cousin did the ancestry service thing and found out where in Europe his ancestry came from. But, was also contacted by a man in a different state who was contacted by that ancestry company and informed that he and my cousin share 95% of their DNA and are likely related. He included his photo and they are dead ringers for each other. It unfortunately turned out that my uncle was stationed at a boot camp in that state and he must have had relations with that man’s mother and got her pregnant before shipping out. Now, the guy and the woman lived in poverty and the man was a little upset because of that poverty. My uncle had died a few years before this and his wife, who he was married to at the time of his shipping out, had Alzheimer’s and was unaware of this news regarding her husbands infidelity at the start of world war 2. But my whole family now had a tainted image of this impeccable man, after his death. All because my cousin did the ancestry thing. I can picture a scenario where a guy who has lived his whole life in poverty and finds out that his biological father was actually well off might want to hire a lawyer to seek compensation. So, think twice about those ancestry services! You might open a huge can of worms.

[@keefjustkeith]

That tainted image, isn't because someone decided to do the ancestry thing, it's because your uncle raw dawg'd it on the regular! Irregardless they'd be completely in their right to collect on an inheritance if there was one!

[@lylecoglianese1645]

@traderjoes, ignore the DNA dude. Your uncle deserves your continued allegiances. Don't let this 'news' alter anyones vision of him!! He sounds like he was a good guy, remember him that way! 🇺🇸

[@michaelwaninger3155]

So what you are saying is your uncle was human so that makes him tainted. Does this mean the rest of your family is not human and therefore immune to mistakes? Your uncle is still the same person you knew.

[@patrickhenry2845]

What inheritance would he be entitled to? He's not a member of the immediate family. And, he did this a long time ago. Do you know how many kids were left behind by GI's serving in Korea and Vietnam? And many were in poverty. Unfortunately.

[@brianhelm2328]

@@patrickhenry2845 No inheritance i suppose, but perhaps back child support from the estate.

[@ltsiver]

"but Steve, if you don't commit a crime" - did you know that it is against federal laws to exist? There are so many laws, it is impossible to live and not commit a 'crime'.

[@JBM425]

As Lavrenty Beria (the head of the NKVD in the Stalin era and predecessor of the KGB) boasted, “Show me a person and I’ll show you a crime.”

[@atcdoktor5536]

I wonder how this would have played out of the crime she was connected to was a murder. Would the state have been so quick to dismiss those charges? What if this person had been a man and his DNA had been taken after his a sexual assault as a child and he had later been tied to a string of rapes or violent crimes as an adult. Would the state have dismissed those felony charges?

[@FrosteMelon]

This is stupid. First off, clearly the lady is not on the list of desirable girlfriends. But don't give your address, phone number, picture and DNA to a person and then steal from them afterwards. Your a criminal, that's one thing, your stupidity that's on you. If you say A you must also say B. You can't just use the police for you own gain, and be mad when the same rules apply back on you. What about her ex that she pulled the rape card on. What about his DNA? The principle of the case holds up, but it's a horrible example to bring this to light.

[@Gromit801]

Its called Poison Fruit of the Tree. Any evidence gathered as a result of illegal gathering, is prohibited by the courts.

[@xblackdog]

It would be so much worse in that case, because now not just did they violate her rights, but also they'd lose their case for using illegally obtained evidence. So not just did the agency violate the U.S. Constitution, but they've also caused a murderer to walk free. Which is why what they did should be swiftly, and harshly punished to make it very clear that you do things the right way, not the easy way. If it was my property that was burgled, I'd probably be finding a way to sue the PD too.

[@anonamouse5917]

@@xblackdog Half of all murders go unsolved.

[@jdigi78]

@@xblackdog it wasn't illegally obtained, they only dropped the charges because it looks bad using rape kit DNA to convict someone

[@berthaduniverse]

I've been arguing for decades, "never give up your DNA". It can come back and bite you! Now imagine having the dates flipped here, "why was your DNA there 5, 10, 15 ya?" You'll be driven to bankruptcy trying to defend yourself for not remembering the location and specifics.

[@SylviaRustyFae]

Tbf, not everyone watched Gattaca as a kid

[@berthaduniverse]

@@SylviaRustyFae Or thinks two steps ahead...

[@Essence1123]

It doesn't matter. If even a couple third cousins of yours have public DNA then you can be found. It's how they found the Golden State Killer (watch Veritasium's video for more info).

[@berthaduniverse]

@@Essence1123 not everything has the depth of a crime of a serial killer. The person here was accused of a single property crime, something I honestly doubt would rise to the level of spending 1000's of staff hours, finding distant relatives, tracking down multiple individuals, secretly obtaining their discarded DNA, and prosecuting a final individual. Seriously, the problem here was letting the "state" enter her DNA into the states database.

[@Stettafire]

We grew up with stories about a strand of hair or a drop of blood being used to control you. It's funny how fantasy can become reality in ways we wouldn't expect

[@greggweber9967]

2:56 Who said something like "show me the person and I'll show you a crime" that that person can be accused of doing. Trust is important, especially for government.

[@nunya3163]

I forget the name, but it was Stalin's head of the secret police.

[@greggweber9967]

@@nunya3163 Beria.

[@Hacker-at-Large]

Those that think this misuse is OK should consider that DNA of people unrelated to a crime are *very* often found at the scene. Outside of rape, DNA evidence can amount to arresting “the usual suspects.”

[@meezerluvr]

If the new law doesn't also include a requirement that victim DNA gets purged from any databases once the associated cases are concluded, then it is worthless. I have no idea how that would be enforced, though.

[@billyyank5807]

hhmmmm.....I don't think police should be allowed to collect, store and maintain a DNA database on people that haven't been convicted of crimes.

[@Dirtyz1234]

My employer tried to pay for an Aflac plan for me, but they (Aflac) want me to sign a HIPAA waiver that allows them to give my personal info to the government. I'm out on that 😂

[@susanfudge1737]

What employer is asking for that?

[@glintinggold]

The government knows your social security number. You're just out of luck I guess LOL

[@mf--]

Lol. Check to see if you have a history of disease / high risk to increase payments. Genetic inclination may be considered a precondition so insurance does not cover you.

[@stephanbranczyk8306]

@@mf-- "Genetic inclination may be considered a precondition so insurance does cover you." No, there is a law forbidding that practice. See the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005. With that said, that ban only applies to health insurance, not life insurance. This is because most people would max out their life insurance, if they knew they were going to die early.

[@cougarhunter33]

@@stephanbranczyk8306 Why would Bill Clinton be signing laws in 2005?

[@thatjeff7550]

I object to courts using data from those 23&Me companies.

[@GKsGS400]

I say they can only use it against the idiots that send it in. Not the relatives.

[@joshuaguenin9507]

i dont think they do..law enforcement uses it to find a person, then they get that persons dna for court

[@Astronomy_Live]

@@GKsGS400 Unfortunately they can and do use it to identify relatives. That's exactly how they nabbed the Golden State Killer. One of my aunts submitted her DNA, so it doesn't matter than I've never submitted to one, any search of my DNA would turn up a significant match with her. Even better, since she's related to me on my mom's side, my mitochondrial DNA would immediately show a maternal link (not sure if commercial DNA testing services grab that or not). One paper estimates that 60% of Caucasians in the US can already be ID'ed based on these databases from DNA submitted by a relative.

[@cheeto4493]

You can object. Though, it probably wont make a difference

[@scawarren]

People should beware of those 23 and Me & other DNA sites too.

[@kunzilla]

I know each state has different laws but this kind of practice was "ordered" to stop YEARS ago!

[@katiekane5247]

This stinks! I applaud her attorneys arguments. Please keep us appraised! I've resisted a family DNA test because of privacy concerns.

[@KiwiCatherineJemma]

My bio-dad abandoned me, as mum took newborn me and ran for safety, and I was brought up by a fabulous loving stepfather, I'm fairly sure I have at least 2 half siblings from bio-dad's later marriage, who are, or at least were, based in the same city I live in (but a common enough surname and a big enough city, that there's too many possible matches to just go through the phonebook, so-to-speak). As we're all getting on in age, I'd dearly like to contact them, and those various "Ancestry DNA" type things seem like a good chance. However I also have longer term privacy concerns. If "Ancestry" or whoever, could ever guarantee "double blind" level of privacy, I'd consider it. Because they won't guarantee real undeniable privacy, (1) they don't get my money for their test and (2)I'm unlikely to ever meet my half siblings, even though they live just a short drive away.

[@gabby8388]

Yea I did the same, then my brother ran one because he heard he had another child out there. He did but now there is a 50% match out there.

[@Allantitan]

I’ve been on the fence myself about using those family dna tests just to see what they generate. Cause quite frankly I keep asking myself “do I want someone who I’ve never met to have access to my dna to do with whatever they wish?”

[@ctom4932]

If you're talking a "who's the daddy" test, that's unfair to the father and cruel to the child. If you're talking ancestry, don't do that shit. They sell that data to everyone.

[@kudukilla]

A serial killer, the Golden State Killer was found through one of those private DNA services. He wasn’t in that system, but relatives were identified. They were interviewed and asked if they had relatives in California, and that’s how the killer was caught.

[@al1383]

I got one of my work vans stolen and when I recovered it the police wanted my DNA. The police got mad when I said no

[@VGKDean]

That’s sickening. If that was allowed less women would come forward to report a rape or assault. Thankfully the DA did the right thing.

[@randyfreeman396]

I have always wondered how we can be compelled to give our DNA when requested by the district attorney or the court system. It shouldn't that be protected by the 5th amendment aren't we being asked to give evidence against ourselves and it's being involuntarily taken from us? What about our right to be secure in our own person

[@a2cryss]

Since when is DNA collected at the scene of a burglary? One of my cars was broken into and things stolen. The police would not even check for prints even though there was a big, greasy one on the door glass.

[@matthewdrews]

What we really need - as a society - is a set of precognition siblings who are able to predict a crime before it will happen. That oughta solve all these issues.

[@7t2z28]

lol

[@badnewsBH]

I hope such a report is in the minority... XD

[@daniellow426]

No, it wouldn't. Trust me. What would happen is the 'precog' would be harassed, framed, and discredited. People would go to Any lengths to 'replace' the precog seeing them as "having power", or hiding the precog under the authority of that person so they could be the ones that decide which criminals to help, hinder, or ignor. If you could sit in the future, see what somebody did from the news, Pass that info back to the past for the police to be ready to stop the crime; you would be treated worse than all of that and eventually members of the press would start lying to you every so often to discredit any warnings you might give. Nations would love, fear, and hate you. You life would become a battle field very quickly... The things that would almost Never happen is stopping an assault. And your life would be one massive fkfest of manipulation.

[@stevec3526]

You are in a small minority of people who report liking that idea.

[@jps1]

How many siblings? 3? What if only 2 of the 3 agree on the future crime? Would the "minority report" from the 1 dissenter be considered?

[@davidanderson4091]

ALL of victims DNA collected from things such as rape kits and victim profiles need to be completely removed from the database. The ONLY DNA that should be allowed to be entered into a Police DNA database are those of people who have been convicted of crimes. As for familial DNA, people who give DNA to ancestry sites should be asked if they want to sign a release to allow law enforcement to find a relative who has committed a crime.

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

No, DNA that is not the victim's DNA must be included in the database. How else will they catch the criminal who hurt the victim?

[@davidanderson4091]

@@EXROBOWIDOW Can you read?

[@arinerm1331]

Those "ancestry DNA" reports probably have a huge disclaimer to say they're "For entertainment purposes only." Identical twins, whose DNA is also identical, can submit separate samples using their separate names and addresses, and they will get separate, and differing, results. That those companies then submit the collected DNA to the government should make them agents of the state, and the companies should no longer be on the NYSE.

[@glintinggold]

What a great idea!

[@EricRedbear]

That very thing happened when Canadian reporter (CBC) Charlsie Agro and her identical twin Carly Agro did DNA ancestry tests... got somewhat different results even from the same company.

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

What I'd like to see is for only one person to send their DNA to the same company under two or more names and see what kind of results come back.

[@Zariel_999]

identical twins aren't 100% identical

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

@@Zariel_999 For the most part they are. As close to 100% as can be.

[@InternationalStacker]

Steve claims not to commit crimes, however, I once saw him refill his soda in a subway, where refills were not free! 😱😱😱😱😱

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

You're wrong about one thing, Steve - You _do_ commit crimes. On average, adult citizens of the United States commit five felonies every year. _Everyone_ has done something within in the past year that could get them into serious trouble with their state or the Feds. To them, it's just questions of if you've made yourself a big enough of a target to go after and if there is enough evidence readily-available to link you to it. In some cases, the evidence doesn't matter at all if you make yourself a sufficiently-large target - the process itself will be used as the punishment.

[@Eternal_Tech]

In addition, there are lesser crimes, such as speeding, not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, having your car's tires touch the shoulder line, letting your grass grow too high, and putting garbage and recyclables in the wrong can, that many people commit quite often.

[@sawyer4981]

My fingerprints are in the system because I had to provide them to obtain a licence to carry a firearm. Maintaining that in a database seems reasonable as it's completely voluntary. Storing victims DNA from rape kits is entirely different. They didn't ask to be raped & they didn't explicitly approve of having their DNA stored by the government.

[@theyaden]

It seems both cases are information given up to pursue your rights. In the first it's to carry a weapon per the 2nd amendment and in the 2nd case to pursue your right to have equal protection under the law by prosecuting someone who has victimize you. I'm not a fan of either.

[@andrewwaldschmitt4757]

Yes, they 100% consented to having their information stored. This is required to prosecute the rapist, as a copy of the evidence is required to be presented to the defense. Otherwise you could end up with accusations and no ability to defend somebody who was actually innocent. The issue is that they were able to search this database against crimes that are not related to the victim.

[@sawyer4981]

@@andrewwaldschmitt4757agreed. physical evidence stored in an evidence locker is not even remotely comparable to digital evidence stored in a searchable database. The former is required for chain of custody, the latter is not & quite frankly, is a massive invasion of someone's privacy. Likely a direct violation of the 4th & 5th amendments as well.

[@sawyer4981]

@@theyaden I would agree with you if the state doesn't have constitutional carry. I can open cary or conceal carry in my state without a license so long as I'm not a prohibited person. I opted to get my license regardless as it looks MUCH better to potential jurors should I ever have to defend myself.

[@gingercat7925]

I seem to recall a Law & Order episode where something somewhat similar happened. I believe in the episode the DNA was actually incorrectly coded as criminal/suspect, rather than victim.

[@geoffstrickler]

CSI Miami had such an episode. Someone got fired over it.

[@genseven4616]

of course it was because women in that show can NEVER be the criminal. I didn't realize it until an episode where a female teacher was blackmailing her male students for sex but that was shadowed by the male gym teacher drugging and raping boys. The detectives actually gave the female teacher immunity for her crimes to help them catch the male gym teacher. At that point I stopped watching.

[@PeteGaughenbaugh1]

Absolutely was. About 2 months ago. The lab tech and the property crimes detective got in trouble in the show.

[@JAllen01]

@@genseven4616 well at leased he was drugging them so he was actually the "bigger fish" so it sort of made since by twisted justice system logic.

[@DP69ner73]

Season 23, Episode of Law & Order: SVU. Libby Blandon leaves in the middle of the night after stealing over $800,000 in watches from a man. He says he met her on a sugar babies website and though he believes she attends NYU, it turns out she is not registered at the school. The SVU squad tracks down Libby and the stolen watches because they already know her -- she was first introduced in Law & Order: SVU Season 22, Episode 14, "Post-Graduate Psychopath," as a victim of a horrifying sexual assault.

[@Kristina.Larson]

The major issue I have with this situation is that these are people who were transgressed against under the law, apparently came to the conclusion that the law didn't get upheld for them, and potentially lost faith in the law and so later transgressed themselves. This is a terrible trend for our society, and needs to be countered. That the case was dropped was appropriate, but the data should never have been used in this manner. Saving victims' DNA in this manner trends towards a more Big Brother outcome than not. That trends towards fascism/authoritarian tendencies, which hurts us all.

[@Jirodyne]

Honestly, I don't understand how such a Database can exist, without Violating the Constitution and your right to Privacy. Think about it. Right now, somewhere on a computer, if a file with your DNA on it. YOUR. DNA. The Genetic Code of your body, your CELLS, the thing that makes you, YOU, is being stored, without your permission, collected without your knowledge, and will eventually be used to harm you. How is this not Theft, Violating Personal Privacy, violating doctor patient protections, and many other issues. I mean, with how little people care, why not make it law, and have the Police go Door to Door, write down your name, your Social Security Number, See your ID, and then take your Finger Prints, DNA, and other Samples. I mean, if you are not a criminal, you have nothing to hide and have no reason to not want those in a Database, Right?

[@jacklewis100]

ALLEGED victim - according to others, she made the allegation but no charges were filed. I think the issue here is that some people are saying that if you commit a crime, certain types of evidence shouldn't be allowed, even if it could prevent further crimes or take a dangerous criminal off the street because they got caught 'unfairly'.

[@Vykk_Draygo]

@@jacklewis100 It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of morality. It's immoral to use a (potential) victim's DNA from a rape kit in prosecuting them in a separate incident. But hey, if you're ready to embrace the Minority Report, then go donate your DNA, prints, dental records, and other identifying marks now.

[@timewa851]

@@Vykk_Draygo it's actually amoral. Justice is blind. She offered dna to solve a crime. It worked. lol.

[@Mephiam]

@@Vykk_Draygo so once someone is the victim of a crime, they simply cannot be held accountable for crimes They commit after that specific date? Brilliant

[@electra2259]

A big reason to keep your DNA to yourself is the ineptness of law enforcement. There is a video of police in WV servings an eviction at the wrong house with the house number prominently displayed on the front of the house. Do you really want your DNA in the hands or people who can’t perform the most simple tasks?

[@overanDownUnder]

Working in The forensic lab industry, they found her dna profile in codis. Unfortunately, if you’ve ever been arrested, submitted dna to a state lab or for a private lab such as 23/me or any of those places that do genetic testing for fun- they’re all submitted and have been for 20 years to state/federal databases.

[@tsubasashi]

I know my DNA is in a database somewhere. It was a requirement when I enlisted in the military. That being said, I'm not sure if it could be used to compare against local crimes, but it's in a database somewhere.

[@kennethcoles9835]

If it's in one it will end up in a national database at some point that will be accessible to all (law enforcement agencies )

[@dianestephens6225]

No military dna is not used in Civilian matters.

[@cynthiarothrock4255]

Military has their own data base. The only share when THEY WANT TO. And won't admit to having it WITHOUT knowing why you want it whom your getting info for and whom is using it. ( A court can run into trouble getting it, unless is inside the military) Interpol only gets it if A-WAL . And they need help finding you.

[@cynthiarothrock4255]

@@kennethcoles9835 military records are not available to civilization cops. Even the IRS and FBI can't get their hands on it. Only other military can assess and they have to file approval paperwork to get it .

[@internettroll7604]

DNA from anyone who is not reasonably suspected of a crime with a protective process should never be put into a database. Period.

[@jacklewis100]

Why do you think that? ( ignoring any 'errors' that might occur in matching)

[@alentrav]

I can't help but disagree. If you submit yourself for government or public scrutiny you have no reasonable expectation that it will not be used against you.

[@ohsweetmystery]

@@alentrav I think both of you have valid points of view.

[@alentrav]

@@ohsweetmystery it may not be right, but sadly, it's reality

[@jacklewis100]

​ @DoublePlusUngood How often is that likely to be the case? i.e. if someone's gotten away with a serious violent crime they'd then want the protection of the law when THEY are the victim but, that aside, weigh it up against the ability to prosecute serious crimes and prevent possibly more victims - so who is more worthy of protecting - potentially many other victims that the accusedmight have robbed/terrorised or the one person. I would lean towards the single person actually but it's not a simple debate.

[@jonathanmarois9009]

Some of those "Ancestry" DNA services stipulate that by giving them your DNA you agree that you are giving them owner rights to your specific DNA sequence forever. People have speculated that some of these companies may one day try to copyright some sequences... imagine that! Imagine if a company owned everything that you are made of... in essence you become a product of their intellectual properly and might owe them something simply for existing...

[@syrpitt]

this should be pined to the top comment .

[@undecidedmiddleground5633]

Copyright doesn't work that way. You can't copyright your name, for instance. I'd like an in-depth analysis by Leonard French, but I'm pretty sure they could never copyright a DNA sequence.

[@trombone113]

So far the Supreme Court has said DNA cannot be copywrited.

[@jonathanmarois9009]

BTW: I may be mistaken but I believe this is already the case in the farming industry. Some companies have copyrights on certain seeds and live-stock... famous example: *Monsanto*

[@Androctonus84]

It's not copyright, but patent. You can't copyright DNA, at least not like this. But DNA sequences can be patented, even if only "discovered" (such as when extracted from a living organism, including a human), not created artificially. There is case law on this. If you sign over the rights to your DNA sequence and that information is later use to develop a drug, for instance, that sequence can be patented, and potentially you could be prohibited from using your own DNA sequence information without the patent holder's permission.

[@larrybremer4930]

Even more to the point - anyone who has committed any serious crime like a burglary can no longer report assaults on their person making them an unprotected sub-class of victim who will no longer report serious crimes against their person for fear of legal repercussions.

[@gailmckay5551]

That's very disturbing they are putting victim DNA in their system. But it doesn't surprise me a bit. They do say anything can be used against you, it doesn't just include things you say apparently. But any info they can get in any manner. They said they stopped, but I bet they didn't.

[@dragonhealer7588]

Something about being "secure in our person" I heard it somewhere....🤔

[@brentfarvors192]

They would successfully argue, that only applies to your "natural person"; Your legal person belongs to them...

[@dragonhealer7588]

@@brentfarvors192 Some might say "Give unto Cesar that which is Cesar's, and give unto God that which is God's" But I say, Give me Liberty, or give me death!

[@brentfarvors192]

@@dragonhealer7588 Damn right!

[@Eternal_Tech]

@@dragonhealer7588 I always thought that it would be better if the quote read, "Give me liberty, or I will give YOU death!"

[@hoooptie]

Some dna companies have enough samples at this point that it doesnt matter whether someone is in their dna bank or not. They can still determine lineage for the majority of the US

[@jeromethiel4323]

Everyone should watch the movie "Gattacca." It is a chilling warning about DNA and it's uses by people in authority and companies. It's a slow moving movie, but very prophetic. Cannot recommend it enough.

[@anders2258]

Thank you, You are one of the good guys with common sense.........

[@se6586]

Domestic R word? So she tried to get her boyfriend put in jail and it came back to haunt her for burglary? 15 years.

[@thistles]

Our government is a disgrace and this is outrageous. I was pissed when my sister told me she did a DNA thing. I didn’t consent to that!

[@deconteesawyer5758]

Ditto. And you are listed on the searchable site with a pixelated picture.

[@hatchetwarrior1240]

What if they use the dna to frame you

[@silentvoiceinthedark5665]

Very easy to plant your DNA specimen to items collected from the crime scene.

[@hatchetwarrior1240]

doesn't have to have been collect from a crime scene something that they were just hanging on to in case you crossed Them

[@alanwignall3016]

I was the victim in an attempted burglary in Tampa and the cops had me sign after takin a saliva sample to rule me out when they looked at my car. I was asked to sign something after which I immediately regretted. It said this sample could be used against me in the future. Pretty sure she signed something similar.

[@monstermcboo7282]

Appalling.

[@orppranator5230]

Imagine if they refused to accept your saliva if you didn’t sign it.

[@cal4207]

Can you read and write English if you answer yes to both of those questions why didn't you do either one of those before signing your f****** name

[@eloiseharbeson2483]

Just to be real, taking DNA evidence REQUIRES the DNA of the victim be characterized to differentiate it from that of the attacker. How is saving the victim's DNA any different from the fingerprint database?

[@georgejones3526]

She was arrested but the charges were dropped. Gee, I wonder how the cops are going to figure out who did it now? That’s a bell that cannot be unrung.

[@sylviaelse5086]

There many perfectly innocent ways in which one's DNA can end up at a crime scene. Once the authorities have one's DNA, one is at risk of being dragged into criminal investigations one has nothing to do with.

[@DarkPesco]

Folks who say, "don't break the law, nothing to worry about" are bootlickers who think there are no laws that are bad laws. These are the same folks who said, "Wear your Star of David patch so you don't have anything to worry about."

[@chickenmonger123]

They are the same kind. Yeah. The issue is they don’t understand the wisdom of boundaries. That laws cannot, and should not breach certain bars. Usually because they can’t imagine how the law will be misused. Inevitably. These people are naive about the ways of those who might oppose them. And are traumatized when they find out how easily evil is done. How little they matter to those kinds.

[@charlesk46563]

When I was in the military they started to take DNA from everyone they said it could not be used for criminal offenses. I never believed that , I only had about a year left so always avoided it

[@chazw3x]

If you were in the military they have your DNA. Well, after roughly 1990. Remember, they can get your DNA from your urine too. I'm sure you took at least one drug test during your time in the military.

[@michaelhanson5773]

They did this a Law and Order episode last season and in the show it was said that it should not have been able to be used against the woman that was raped as it would deter people from coming forward to report those crimes if their dna was going to be put into a database and used against them... It is sad when reality actually mimics television like this.

[@Bymb2020]

So she was let off? That’s messed up. She should be doing some time.

[@williezar2231]

Are they running checks on sperm banks too?

[@celticlord88]

Good question

[@Dreddip]

Curious, how is DNA database different than a fingerprint database? I'm not certian but aren't fingerprints kept in a database that can be searched and compaired to those found at a crime scene which can lead to identifying the perpetrator (assuming at some point that person was booked at some point in their lifetime)? If so, I'm actualy surprised they haven't started collecting DNA from people during the booking process like they do fingerprints. I would think/hope legislation limiting how DNA is used would also apply to fingerprinting. If not, how are they different? Steve, I share the same sentiment regarding those ancentry databases. I don't comit crimes but I also haven't sent in a sample to be added to their database.

[@anastasiacline6159]

I would assume (not a lawyer) that taking blood would require a warrant because you're physically removing something from a person. Whereas with fingerprints you're not taking anything physical from the person, so you don't need a specific warrant to obtain them.

[@silentvoiceinthedark5665]

You are much more likely to leave a tear drop, hair, snot or some other body part than your finger prints. Finger prints are not that easy to collect, its only in movies.

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

@@anastasiacline6159 I don't believe DNA is normally collected from blood. Hair is more likely. Hair is always shedding out and landing on clothing, furniture, the floor, etc. Requiring a search warrant for hair seems rather extreme.

[@b_uppy]

The Declaration of Independence says 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' This feels like an innate Impingement of that. I do not knowingly commit crimes, nor do I intend to. I want my info out of reach of the internet where it is vulnerable to exploitation, building of power and wealth, etc by classes of people willing to do abuse it's use.. I have enough to worry about without worrying about others thinking it's okay to exploit victim info. It hutprts my happiness, my freedom and possibly my life.

[@cougarhunter33]

The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with current law.

[@b_uppy]

@@cougarhunter33 You're missing the point, it was a foundational documentation the spirit of our nation.

[@odbo_One]

Privacy is just as important as being innocent, even when person commits crime it's still important.

[@OriginalUnjustifier]

There's an amendment that prohibits persons from being forced to self incriminate. I would make a claim that using DNA submitted for benign purposes to incriminate said individual could be seen as a violation of said amendment.

[@darylperrault7936]

Thats why you never do a 23 and me. your DNA is on file for law enforcement

[@shaungreenlee2376]

I'm curious as to how it works for example when they draw your blood whether if you submit or by a warrant for let say a DUI. Can that blood sample be used against someone in the future for proof of a crime or must that be destroyed once the individual is found guilty/not guilty or if you just plead out?

[@cal4207]

If they have your f****** blood they have your DNA the two most popular ways of obtaining DNA a blood sample or a cheek swab

[@cougarhunter33]

Depends on the jurisdiction. In my state, they automatically take DNA upon a felony arrest. Last I knew, DUI was a felony arrest. They were also looking at doing it for misdemeanor arrests as well, but I don't know if that ever came to pass.

[@xdelisiusx]

I waited through the whole video before posting, but what about the victims of HER crime now? Are they just screwed because of this? As for the DNA being in the system, imo, victim DNA should never be kept, for any reason, once the case is closed. That would prevent things like this from even possibly happening in the future. This is were Federal legislation needs to come in and just make it federal law that victim DNA be expunged following the closing of the case.

[@uberian22]

I don't think that's possible as the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over this type of issue.

[@orppranator5230]

Yes, they are screwed, unfortunately. (Unfortunately in the sense that the victims won’t see justice, not that the woman’s rights are being upheld)

[@jaywest4102]

What happen to all the swabs from covid tests? Did labs test only for covid then destroy the swabs? Could government agencies really resist the temptation to collect everyone information

[@michaelgagne6254]

It would have been best if law enforcement simply applied for a warrant for the DNA. Going into the DNA database should require a warrant. A warrant protects all parties involved, including the cops.

[@demontooth0428]

Judges have a rubber stamp for warrants.

[@KevinLyda]

We want people to consent to rape kits. We want rapists caught and convicted. Even if you don't think you'll ever be raped, rape is a violent crime and those commiting it seem likely to try their hand at assault and murder. Using DNA evidence from rape kits to punish rape victims runs counter to that. Privacy arguments are also good here but it's also just horrible public policy.

[@charlesdoyle3630]

@@TravisMartin With as many people as are in the United States more than you would think. Law of averages kind of thing.

[@michaellake2184]

Using DNA evidence from rape kits wouldn't be used to punish rape victims, but it would be used against alleged perpetrators of crimes. Although I am not sure all the details of the shield law, but a conviction could be used to impeach the witness and perhaps spare an innocent man from prison.

[@jamesbael6255]

What about the victim of the property crime? The criminal just goes free?

[@aethertoast4320]

@skutch Blobaum that is bad, but we still have the issue of the person being robbed. That feels like a shitty thing to happen to them. They are innocent in all of this and now they are left with no justice. Don't "what about this".

[@celticlord88]

Probably dropped for lack of evidence

[@celticlord88]

If they obtain her dna another way, prosecute her. No one is saying she shouldn't be prosecuted. They object to how police obtained her dna

[@blazera7328]

23 and Me or Ancestry databases can be accessed by police with a search warrant. Even if they don't find a match they may find a relative.

[@DianaJG8]

I found out just this week that the blood hospitals take from newborns for PKU (along with approx 7 other tests) is being KEPT for up to 23 YEARS!

[@edkrausmixengineer]

I can't imagine this scenario hasn't come up already with fingerprints. A crime happens in a victim's home. The police say, we need the fingerprints of all the victims in this home so we can determine the perpetrator's fingerprints. Are the police going to put the victim's prints in a database? And what about using victim information, not in court, but as way to know who to target in an investigation? There has to be other cases in history that have already given a guideline to this DNA issue. Thoughts?

[@MelissiaBlackheart]

Also, "just don't commit crimes" I guarantee you, you break multiple laws every day. *Especially* if you drive. There's so many laws and so many regulations that _the federal government was unable to calculate the total!_

[@glintinggold]

This is what cops base their attitudes on. They know we're always doing petty crimes, they're paid to fill jail cells, and they feel comfortable trampling our rights since they don't know them. They are strangely unaware that they themselves commit many felonies and countless petty crimes and don't get me started on misdemeanors!!!

[@johnpublic6582]

Hard to say if that is because there are a lot of crimes or if it is because the federal government is totally incompetent. Was the egg first?

[@denisemarie6997]

Forty years ago I told people to not give their kids' fingerprints to the local po-po (there was a push on in case your kid was ever kidnapped and killed, etc.) Just take 'em at home, if you want. If your child is kidnapped and killed, you can give the police your child's prints to help the investigation. Thirty years ago I had to give my thumbprint to take the bar exam. Ugh. The "ancestry" DNA sites are, in my opinion, baloney. The databases were compiled from people reporting that their parents swore that they were all from Sicily, or that they were descended from Viking royalty, etc. The database is hearsay, but sometimes people get upset because the ancestry sites didn't confirm that they were direct descendants of Caesar and Cleopatra. If people do it for fun, that's cool.😊

[@whyask5461]

Those ancestry websites are also used as a hotbed of identity theft. You are publicly displaying far too much information (like your mother's maiden name, where you were born, etc.).

[@herculesbrofister265]

@@whyask5461 to pronounce my mother's maiden name, I would have to cut out part of your tongue.

[@malcolmmaze7196]

“That’s a good ending” no she should be in jail! Doubt the property owners would agree with the “good ending”.

[@thatjeff7550]

Well if the police had done their job the case probably could have been solved without going through an illegal process. Blame the cops.

[@malcolmmaze7196]

@@thatjeff7550 I mean they identified the perpetrator, sounds like the police did do their job! Now if the DA thier job lol.

[@chiselbit2]

@@thatjeff7550 But the process isn't illegal. Thats, why our good Lehto said a law preventing it, is "coming down the pipeline". The cops used tools that were ok'ed at the time and still ok'ed as of now but the legitimate case against her is getting thrown out anyway.

[@rnreajr9184]

I wonder if the property owners can file a civil suit against the perpetrator for this...

[@uniquename6925]

"To qualify for protection by law enforcement officers, US citizens are being asked to provide DNA registration in government databases. Luckily, this intrusion on constitutional rights is entirely optional. Citizens merely have to opt out of protection under the law." Got assulted? Yes, thanks for providing DNA on your bloodied clothes. We'll just go ahead and put that in our database... Oh, you don't want us to have that kind of information on you? Yes sure, we'll just go ahead and drop the assualt case... Can you even imagine if having your DNA tagged is a requirement for reporting crimes?! What the hell kind of world would that be?

[@oughv]

Guarantee you that they will continue to store the DNA and from now on they will use the DNA to identify but not put it in the arrest report. The problem is not fixed the cops just learned how to properly lie in this scenario.

[@ChiefMac59]

Time to end this practice permanently - instead of stating that "the law didn't say we couldn't do it" - to "can't do it unless there is a law stating that we can"

[@guidichris]

The irony is that in CA, you can fill a bag with merch and walk out the door with no repercussions. No effort to solve or stop those crimes.

[@EclecticBuddha]

Just remember, the police will pin you to the ground and stand there as your child is murdered in front of you. Law enforcement deserves to be undermined. We should shop for protection like we shop for car insurance.

[@mavericksetsuna7396]

What about the people who can afford protection? Do we let them get beaten/raped/killed because they should have bought "Protection"?

[@jamesduncan6729]

Law enforcement, as a whole, does NOT "deserve" to be undermined. Bad and/or corrupt law enforcement officers do deserve harsh punishments, but law enforcement by and large needs to be able to do its job. If you really think law enforcement needs to be undermined, you better not ever call the police for anything. Get stabbed by a crazy person? Well, no cops for you, deal with it on your own. Family member shot by a gang member? Sorry, that's your problem, don't call the cops. Your house being broken into by a group of criminals? Handle it yourself, pal, obviously you won't need police for that. Btw, shopping for your own personal protection is called "shopping for a gun."

[@glintinggold]

I was with you until you said private police is a good idea. IT'S A HORRIBLE IDEA.

[@EclecticBuddha]

@@mavericksetsuna7396 You're just describing the status quo in poor neighborhoods. And they're already being taxed to fund those cops.

[@patrickmorrissey2271]

Thank you for mentioning those DNA companies... The family Tree ones & all that. I'm not really sure if people just "don't know" that that information is shared with law enforcement, or that they are "comfortable" with that... But either way, uhhh... I would not use those companies. You should be careful with those anyways. You might find out things you don't want to know....

[@marclabelle4253]

what sucks is if a close relative uses one of these they dox their whole family :(

[@01gtbdaily30]

My sister and I did the 23&me dna test kit and we found out that after 30 years her an I have different fathers lol .

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

@@01gtbdaily30 Based on other comments I've seen here, maybe you should try a different company or two. You could wind up with 3 fathers apiece... 😄

[@ThatBigGuy824]

“I don’t commit crimes” As a lawyer, you know how “untrue” that really is 😂

[@williamruiz3889]

I did not hear of this story. thank you for sharing it..