Category Archives: Transhuman News

Watch Jay Sean - 2012 (It Ain #39;t The End) Ft. Nicki Minaj - 2012
Watch full movie here : free-hot-movies.com 2012 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Super Bowl commercial Consciousness Science in Men #39;s 100m Final apocalypse twinkies spiritual awareness skyrim live action Trailer gregorian calender arrow in the knee spiritual journey skyrim soundtrack end of the world natural disaster David Wilcock Olympic Games how to meditate solar cycle 24 Woody Harrelson indigo children Stargate Travel Olympic Stadium skyrim belethor skyrim gameplay trailer Olympic disaster movie mayan calendar Mayan Calendar belethors shop Full Replay sustainability transformation The Super Bowl ad consciousness enlightenment Barry Manilow spirit guides 5th dimension Divine Cosmos skyrim sigurd skyrim battle skyrim dragon Usain Bolt entertainment Championships end of world Conspiracy prediction Danny Glover Oliver Platt pineal gland spirit guide Summer Games http://www.in5d.com civilization Introduction destruction end of days apocalypse Chevrolet Silverado Athletics Swimming John Cusack Amanda Peet atomic bomb indigo quiz edgar cayce DNA upgrade skyrim them Nostradamus Environment buckminster Philippines Afghanistan BillingsleyFrom:GlennisHauswalViews:0 0ratingsTime:09:51More inFilm Animation

Go here to read the rest:
Watch Jay Sean - 2012 (It Ain't The End) Ft. Nicki Minaj - 2012 - Video

DARK TIMES; new series; sneak peek
readme; CHARACTERS LIST BELOW + PLOT This is a series that I am planning and working on to finish the first season before I upload it. I am planning to upload it after the SEASON 2 FINALE of "OUR WORLD" SEASON ONE FINALE of "Robin Hoods" - as you all may already notice, I am a very big fan of crime/supernatural shows/books whilst is why my stories will ALWAYS be either in that kind of genre. Anyway, here are the characters below their position in the series. This is just a sneak peek, so I hope you all like it (: by the way, thanks GiRLiee13 for helping me with the cast list. (: MAIN CAST: Ashley Tisdale ; Jessica Dawson [CSI LEVEL 3] Zac Efron ; Morgan Andrews [CSI LEVEL 3] Ian Somerhalder ; Kenneth Stabler [CSI LEVEL 3 SUPERVISOR] Nina Dobrev ; Tavia Riley [CSI LEVEL 3 ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR] Paul Wesley ; Teddy Curtis [CSI LEVEL 3] Candice Accola ; Kathleen Jacobs Curtis [LAB TECH, TRACE] Claire Holt; Rebekah Simmons [LAB TECH, DNA] Jensen Ackles ; Capt.Dean Winchester [DETECTIVE CAPTAIN] Sophia Bush ; Brooke Elisabeth [CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER] RECURRING CAST: Leighton Meester ; Mila Eva [ASSISTANT MEDICAL EXAMINER] Ed Westwick ; Marc Adams [CSI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR] Vanessa Hudgens ; Alexa Ray [LAB TECH, AUDIO VIDEO] Stephen Amell ; Oliver Burns [LAB TECH, FINGERPRINT] many more ; please give me a list of celebrities you would like to make a guest star appearance - VERY IMPORTANT! i hope you all enjoyed this sneak peek, please do COMMENT, RATE, AND SUBSCRIBE ...From:iloveyouzashleyViews:3 1ratingsTime:01:31More inEntertainment

See the article here:
DARK TIMES; new series; sneak peek - Video

Little Mix - Going Nowhere [VIOLIN COVER]
Hey this is a cover of Little Mix #39;s song #39;Going Nowhere #39; off their debut album #39;DNA #39; All instruments played by me! Follow me on twitter! @camillacorbettFrom:camillamc1Views:2 0ratingsTime:03:46More inMusic

See the rest here:
Little Mix - Going Nowhere [VIOLIN COVER] - Video

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a major genetic-privacy case on whether authorities may take DNA samples from anybody arrested for serious crimes.

The case has wide-ranging implications, because at least 21 states and the federal government have regulations requiring suspects to give a DNA sample upon arrest. In all the states with such laws, DNA saliva samples are cataloged in state and federal crime-fighting databases.

Without comment, the justices opted to take on an April decision (.pdf) from Marylands top court, which said it was a breach of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure to take, without warrants, DNA samples from suspects who have not been convicted.

The Maryland Court of Appeals, that states highest court, said that arrestees have a weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches and that expectation is not outweighed by the states purported interest in assuring proper identification of a suspect.

The case involves Alonzo King, who was arrested in 2009 on assault charges. A DNA sample he provided linked him to an unsolved 2003 rape case, and he was later convicted of the sex crime. But the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, saying his Fourth Amendment rights were breached.

Maryland prosecutors argued that mouth swabs were no more intrusive than fingerprinting, but the states high court said that it could not turn a blind eye to what it called a vast genetic treasure map that exists in the DNA samples retained by the state.

The court was noting that DNA sampling is much different from compulsory fingerprinting. A fingerprint, for example, reveals nothing more than a persons identity. But much more can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a persons family ties, some health risks and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The issue before the justices does not contest the long-held practice of taking DNA samples from convicts. The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that those who are convicted of crimes have fewer privacy rights.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called exigent circumstances or a warrant. For example, the fact that alcohol evaporates in the body is an exigent circumstance that provides authorities the right to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

The justices are to hear the Maryland case in the coming months.

Originally posted here:
Pivotal DNA Privacy Case Gets Supreme Court Hearing

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will decide whether it's legal for police to collect DNA samples from people under arrest, a case that could have nationwide implications on the question of privacy versus public safety.

The justices announced that they will review a Maryland court decision that effectively barred the warrantless collection of genetic material from suspects who have not yet been convicted of a crime, a procedure used around the country in hopes of cracking old cases.

Courts have consistently upheld DNA collection from those convicted of a crime. But the federal government and 27 states also have laws that allow the collection of DNA from people arrested but not yet convicted.

Maryland began collecting samples from people arrested for violent crimes in 2009 and authorities took a cheek swab from Alonzo King Jr., who was arrested on assault charges. Police found out the sample matched the DNA of a rapist from a 2003 rape in Salisbury, Md. King was later found guilty in the 2003 attack and sentenced to life in prison.

But King challenged his conviction, saying the pre-conviction collection of his DNA violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures. Maryland's highest court agreed, with judges saying "King's expectation of privacy is greater than the state's purported interest in using his DNA to identify him for purposes of his 10 April 2009 arrest on the assault charges."

Chief Justice John Roberts previously blocked the ruling and allowed police to keep collecting DNA samples pending the high court's review.

The federal appeals courts have so far sided with the police on this issue, who say the samples contribute to a database that helps law enforcement.

In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies because law enforcement's interest in solving cold cases, identifying suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweighed privacy concerns. In July, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia overturned a lower court judge who called it an unconstitutional invasion of privacy to routinely collect DNA samples from defendants who had yet to be convicted.

The case will be argued in early 2013.

Continue reading here:
Court Will Decide on Collection of DNA Samples

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider whether a state may collect DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of violent crimes, in a case that may have national implications for law enforcement.

Maryland is appealing an April 24 decision by the state Court of Appeals overturning the 2010 conviction and life sentence of Alonzo Jay King for a rape committed seven years earlier, and prior to his 2009 arrest for assault.

A DNA sample taken following that arrest without a warrant had linked him to the earlier crime.

In overturning King's conviction, the Maryland appeals court said the state's DNA Collection Act violated the ban on unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That Maryland law lets police take DNA samples from people arrested for violent crimes, attempted violent crimes, burglary and attempted burglary.

In July, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts put that lower court ruling on hold, allowing the law to remain in effect, while Maryland appealed the King case.

Roberts said at the time that there was a "fair prospect" that the Supreme Court would reverse the ruling, and that the ruling subjected Maryland to "irreparable harm."

The chief justice said the court of appeals ruling conflicted with three other courts that had upheld laws similar to Maryland's DNA collection law.

He also said the appeals court ruling had national implications because it would, if upheld, prevent the FBI from getting the samples for a national database.

Collecting DNA samples "implicates an important feature of day-to-day law enforcement practice" in half of all U.S. states and the federal government, Roberts said.

See the original post:
Supreme Court takes up DNA and sentencing cases

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a case examining whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to collect and analyze a persons DNA at the time of arrest or whether they have to wait until after the suspect has been convicted to take a DNA sample.

The case raises the thorny issue of when the government is allowed to collect a DNA sample from an individual and store it in a national database.

DNA information has become a major crime-fighting tool, providing a significantly more accurate method of identifying individuals than the subjective art of fingerprint comparisons. DNA data have helped police solve crimes and have also helped defense lawyers identify and correct wrongful convictions.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

But unlike fingerprints, DNA material can reveal far more about an individual, including details that most people consider highly personal and private.

Nonetheless, law enforcement officials insist that they are interested in using DNA technology only for identification, as a kind of enhanced form of fingerprinting.

The issue arises in the case of Alonzo King, who was arrested in southern Maryland in 2009 on an assault charge.

As part of his processing by police, officers used a swab to collect a sample of his saliva from his cheek. The sample yielded an identifying DNA profile which was fed into a national database.

Mr. Kings DNA profile was found to match the DNA profile of the person who robbed and raped a woman in the same area of southern Maryland in 2003.

Armed with that information, authorities applied for a search warrant and obtained a second swab of Kings cheek. The second sample also matched the DNA evidence from the 2003 rape. King was charged with the rape and robbery.

Read this article:
Can police collect DNA before conviction? Supreme Court to hear case