{"id":248305,"date":"2012-07-27T01:17:37","date_gmt":"2012-07-27T01:17:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.eugenesis.com\/federal-appeals-court-to-reconsider-california-dna-collection-law\/"},"modified":"2012-07-27T01:17:37","modified_gmt":"2012-07-27T01:17:37","slug":"federal-appeals-court-to-reconsider-california-dna-collection-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/dna\/federal-appeals-court-to-reconsider-california-dna-collection-law.php","title":{"rendered":"Federal appeals court to reconsider California DNA-collection law"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    A federal appeals court will take a second look at a California    law that requires police to collect DNA from people who are arrested on suspicion    of felonies, regardless of whether they are convicted.  <\/p>\n<p>    A majority of judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals    voted Wednesday to reconsider a split decision by a three-judge    panel that had upheld the program in February.  <\/p>\n<p>    The court's decision to ask an 11-judge panel to consider the    case was a setback for prosecutors, who have defended the DNA    collection as a vital crime-fighting tool.  <\/p>\n<p>    Once a person is swabbed, his or her DNA profile is placed in a    criminal database, where it can be compared with DNA profiles    obtained from evidence left at crime scenes. Among those    challenging the program were three protesters who were arrested    but never convicted of a crime. Two of those challengers were    released without being charged.  <\/p>\n<p>    California voters approved collecting DNA from felony arrestees    in 2004, passing Proposition 69 by a wide margin. The state    began taking DNA from people arrested on suspicion of felonies    in 2009 but immediately faced litigation over whether the    collection violated the constitutional rights of people to be    free of unreasonable searches and seizures.  <\/p>\n<p>    In his dissent in February, 9th Circuit Judge William A.    Fletcher questioned the effectiveness of the program, observing    that many DNA \"hits\" to crime scene evidence involved suspects    who were eventually convicted. The state has long obtained DNA    from convicted criminals, a practice courts have upheld.  <\/p>\n<p>    Although people who are not convicted may apply to have their    DNA profile removed from the criminal database, \"expungement is    a lengthy, uncertain, and expensive process,\" Fletcher wrote.  <\/p>\n<p>    The California Supreme Court also is examining the legality of    collecting genetic evidence from people before    conviction, after a lower state court ruled the practice    unconstitutional.  <\/p>\n<p>    Atty. Gen.Kamala D. Harris, whose office is defending the DNA    program, has said that the arrestee DNA collection has solved    thousands of crimes. Her office said the potential genetic    matches to crime scene evidence rose nearly 51% in the year    after authorities began compiling arrestee DNA.  <\/p>\n<p>    Most states take DNA from at least some felony suspects before    conviction, but courts have been split over the    constitutionality of the practice. TheU.S. Supreme Courtis    considering a ruling out of Maryland that struck down that    state's collection of DNA from people never convicted of a    crime.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>The rest is here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/latimes.com.feedsportal.com\/c\/34336\/f\/625246\/s\/21b81502\/l\/0L0Slatimes0N0Cnews0Clocal0Cla0Eme0Edna0Ecourt0E20A120A7260H0A0H43275390Bstory0Dtrack0Frss\/story01.htm\" title=\"Federal appeals court to reconsider California DNA-collection law\">Federal appeals court to reconsider California DNA-collection law<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> A federal appeals court will take a second look at a California law that requires police to collect DNA from people who are arrested on suspicion of felonies, regardless of whether they are convicted.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/dna\/federal-appeals-court-to-reconsider-california-dna-collection-law.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":57,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[577489],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dna"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248305"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/57"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=248305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}