Monthly Archives: June 2013

CHOCTAW INDIAN BLOOD vs 23andME DNA TEST
Unlike the presentation of my paternal grandmothers Mississippi Choctaw heritage video; whereas, I #39;d had the privilege of personally hearing from her about o...

By: kbull612

See more here:
CHOCTAW INDIAN BLOOD vs 23andME DNA TEST - Video

DNA Podcast
DNA Podcast.

By: DNA Gaming

Continued here:
DNA Podcast - Video

DNA wrestling match
Heavy weight world champion match.

By: ben rooney

See the original post:
DNA wrestling match - Video

3ChicsPolitico- Melissa Harris Perry- DNA is a civil rights issue
DNA is a civil rights issue.

By: 3chicspolitico

Read more from the original source:
3ChicsPolitico- Melissa Harris Perry- DNA is a civil rights issue - Video

Wanessa Intro/Dna Ao vivo na The Week 15/06/2013

By: Diego Gomes

Read more:
Wanessa Intro/Dna Ao vivo na The Week 15/06/2013 - Video

try lang e. dna uulitin --. hahaha!

By: Erika Lynn Andico

Read more here:
try lang e. dna uulitin --. hahaha! - Video

DNA Shoot to Kill Dia D Festival
Video gravado durante a apresentao do grupo DNA no Dia D Festival, dia 08 de junho de 2013, no lanamento do DVD "Planeta dos Macacos" do grupo Delinquente...

By: MAURO D.N.A.

Follow this link:
DNA Shoot to Kill Dia D Festival - Video

HTC DROID DNA Commercial TV Ad

By: DemonTech2

View original post here:
HTC DROID DNA Commercial TV Ad - Video

Published: Monday, June 17, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

The words "Antonin Scalia was right" do not flow easily for me. But the court's most uncompromising conservative, who wrote a withering dissent, was correct when he issued a dire-sounding warning from the bench: "Make no mistake about it: Because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason."

The case, involving a Maryland law that mandates DNA collection, scrambled the court's ideological seating chart. Scalia, of all people, sided with the liberals; while Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, joined the conservative majority.

Maryland v. King was an appropriate test case. A man named Alonzo King was arrested in 2009 on an assault charge. Police in Wicomico County took a DNA sample by swabbing the inside of his cheek -- without obtaining a search warrant -- as permitted under Maryland law. Months later, King's DNA profile was matched with evidence from a 2003 rape case. King was subsequently tried and convicted of the rape.

It's impossible not to applaud the result: A rapist who otherwise would have escaped justice was made to pay for his heinous crime. But the way this result was obtained, Scalia argued, ignores the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits most warrantless searches without reasonable suspicion, and police had no reason to suspect that King had committed the rape -- or that he had committed any crime except the assault for which he had been arrested.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy accepted the state's argument that the DNA sample was actually a method of identification -- like a mug shot or a set of fingerprints -- and not an unreasonable search. With all due respect, this is a bunch of hooey. As Scalia put it, Kennedy's argument "taxes the credulity of the credulous."

Before the DNA test was even performed, police knew perfectly well who King was. They had his name, address, date of birth, height, weight, eye color, you name it. No question had been raised about his identity.

Months elapsed before King's DNA was entered into a national database. If identity were the purpose for collecting the sample, you'd think it would be compared with the DNA of people who looked like King or had a similar name. Instead, it was compared with DNA samples collected at the scenes of unsolved crimes.

In other words, the obvious purpose of collecting the DNA sample was to solve cold cases. This is an admirable goal. But there's that pesky Fourth Amendment.

Read more here:
On DNA, Scalia had it exactly right

HARTFORD

Associated Press/June 17, 2013

Prison officials can use reasonable force to take DNA samples from convicted felons who refuse to provide them, Connecticuts second-highest court ruled Monday. State law requires all convicted felons to provide DNA samples, but it does not specifically say that officials can use force. The Appellate Court said that prohibiting the state from using reasonable force would permit a felon to avoid his or her obligation to provide a DNA sample and thus frustrate the Legislatures goal of creating a DNA databank to assist in future criminal investigations. The ruling came in the appeals of two inmates, Mark Banks and Roosevelt Drakes, who challenged the states authority to take their DNA samples by force.

Copyright 2013 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Continue reading here:
Court OK’s use of force to get DNA sample