Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you look at the history of DNA cases, the supremes have said that it's okey-dokey to follow a suspect around until they discard something & obtain DNA from the trash. That's ok because the police actually have a small number of suspects that they have developed some sort of suspicion about. They could have obtained this suspect's DNA by that method. No one gets involuntarily probed by the government.
Actually, I think the moment you set your trash on the curb or take it to the cans in the alley; you have legally relinquished your dominion over any evidence that might be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippyman
In this case, you had visitors, family members, nurses, aides, and an untold (but large) number of people who were expected to be in the building, and an unknown number of people who could have easily entered the building through multiple unsecured doors. The police knew this DNA test was a long-shot, because they both asked for the public's help and posted officers at all the doors when the story broke. So even the "someone in this room" theory didn't hold water.
This case will go to the supremes & they'll likely tie themselves into a pretzel trying to both keep the "perp" in jail and preserve some semblance of the bill of rights - but they won't be able to say it's fine to authorize a warrant against a group of people- because that is by definition a "general warrant" and there's over 200 years of legal precedent against that very thing. The most conservative justices are the least likely to tolerate this kind of shortcut, because it's so clearly and plainly not allowed under the bill of rights.
Maybe the number of males who would have had access to the patient was not very large? No male visitors? Arizona’s female nurse to male nurse ratio; 8.4:1, is higher than the national average (9.5:1) but I still can’t imagine that we are talking about more than a handful.
I also think the media reports of “mass-dna testing” or “DNA dragnet” are a bit misleading, as it seems that one man at a time is being tested. That said; I am seeing that you are not alone in your concerns. Various local newspapers from all over the country have agreed with you via their Editorial articles:
Quote:
Just because an Arizona judge signed off on the warrant doesn’t mean he was correct in doing so.
Gathering every male employee’s DNA first certainly makes their jobs easier — but it puts the right of the people to be secure from unreasonable government intrusion further out of reach.
There was a warrant & it will definitely matter long term. There was zero physical evidence & no witness statements to cast "suspicion" over a "large number" of male employees (the police used the term "large number" in their press release). Warrants are issued one-at-a-time under our bill of rights, based on some amount of "reasonable suspicion", not just a DNA dragnet.
This is a very important case from a civil liberties and privacy standpoint & if the warrant is allowed to stand - everyone in this country who isn't a rapist is going to be subject to having their DNA seized by the police without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing- the courts have carved some pretty big holes in the rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches, and this one will be the biggest thus far.
All we have left to protect the sanctity and privacy of our DNA is a court ruling that this warrant was defective & absent that, you're left with a legal standard that doesn't allow "mass warrants" & some weasel- words allowing a mass warrant in this case, because... Reasons..
We need a couple grown-ups in the courts to deliver some bad tasting medicine now, or we're in for some truly awful consequences in the future. Sensational cases make bad laws.
The fact that he was one of a select group of males who had regular access to the victim IS reasonable suspicion.
The authorities did not ask for a warrant covering every male who ever entered the building in the last year, or every male who was ever on the property in the last year or every male in the neighborhood.
{BTW......if you are worried about the courts carving a great big hole in our rights to privacy, you better hope the SC does not strike down Roe v Wade.}
Actually, I think the moment you set your trash on the curb or take it to the cans in the alley; you have legally relinquished your dominion over any evidence that might be found.
Maybe the number of males who would have had access to the patient was not very large? No male visitors? Arizona’s female nurse to male nurse ratio; 8.4:1, is higher than the national average (9.5:1) but I still can’t imagine that we are talking about more than a handful.
I also think the media reports of “mass-dna testing” or “DNA dragnet” are a bit misleading, as it seems that one man at a time is being tested. That said; I am seeing that you are not alone in your concerns. Various local newspapers from all over the country have agreed with you via their Editorial articles:
It would’ve been more than just the male nurses, it would’ve included housekeeping and maintenance as well since they all have access to patient rooms.
It is a slippery slope. I was just watching a 2020 Friday about them catching a serial killer. Towards the end they thought they knew who it was but needed DNA to be sure. So they used DNA from a Pap smear his daughter had gotten at her last exam. Without her knowledge or permission. I am glad they got the guy, but it is a very slippery slope.
I think he’s just trying to save face by digging in his heels
What? Given that, in all likelihood, the rapist committed rape a number of times and raped more than one victim, under what circumstance do you think he should be allowed to walk away? I can't think of any, and if the young woman in question was your daughter, you would see it differently. As long as some posters keep searching for reasons to allow the rapist to go free (giving him hope), they should hang their heads in shame.
But keep on showing your support for the rapist. At least we know where you stand.
What? Given that, in all likelihood, the rapist committed rape a number of times and raped more than one victim, under what circumstance do you think he should be allowed to walk away? I can't think of any, and if the young woman in question was your daughter, you would see it differently. As long as some posters keep searching for reasons to allow the rapist to go free (giving him hope), they should hang their heads in shame.
But keep on showing your support for the rapist. At least we know where you stand.
NO ONE stated he should get off. No one. The poster simply pointed out that if he does, it'll likely be due to the DNA seizure. Pointing something out like he won't get off UNLESS they find the DNA seizure unconstitutional is not even a little bit similar to saying they hope he gets off.
You're just playing around with semantics when you know perfectly well what that poster meant.
Any news on the case? I guess now, it's just about waiting for it to go to trial?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Happy New Year!
