Misdemeanor Crime Memo Essay

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

In Maryland, police officers are permitted to collect DNA from suspects who are arrested for crimes of violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. This has proven to be effective in identifying criminals. One of the criminals that was caught using DNA evidence, Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was extremely dissatisfied when he was linked to and charged for another crime when he was arrested and charged for assault. When his DNA was taken, law enforcement officers found that his DNA matched the DNA evidence of a previous rape case. Because of this discovery, King received the life sentence and decided to appeal his case, arguing that the MDCA (Maryland DNA Collection Act) was unconstitutional and violated the Fourth Amendment. The fundamental question

While controversy exists for a DNA database, the US possessing such a resource could possibly be one of the greatest advantages our government has ever possessed. Many times in crime shows you see a miracle DNA identification, but in reality there is less than .1% of our population recorded in such a fashion. With a nationalized DNA database it would be substantially easier to solve many crimes where DNA presents itself. It would also create a way to ID people even when they provide false papers or identity. Though perhaps the greatest point in favor of a national database is the simple fact that if your innocent you

If I was asked to give a DNA sample I would definitely do it. Why, you may ask? If I am innocent why not. I think that even though the crime was underfunded I think that it makes sense to do voluntary DNA samples. It would not cost anything for that. Honestly, I think that surreptitious sampling is necessary. If crime investigators really believe that someone did and crime and have the evidence for it they should be aloud to do it. I can understand that it is not really giving the suspect a choice of whether they want to provide DNA, but if it helps catch a murder than I do not see a problem with it. If the court was to set limits or guidelines it should be based off the other evidence first. If it is enough to solidly think someone did the

When a crime has been committed, it is up to investigators and the courts to determine how to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect. Problems arise when an individual feels his or her Fourth Amendment rights have been violated when it comes to reasonableness of obtaining DNA, since many individuals feel they should be protected from unreasonable search of their person, home, and personal effects. There are several factors that need to be considered how to legally obtain DNA from a suspect. These can include warrant and probable cause issues, totality of circumstances, whether the crime in question is a violent felony, and if the suspect has been arrested, or previously arrested and convicted

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

If a wrongful conviction occurs nowadays, our greatest chance to prove that it is a wrongful convictions is with DNA

Substantive: In 2000, the Georgia General Assembly amended O.C.G.A. section 24-4-60 (“the statute”) to require people that are convicted of felonies and incarcerated for felony crimes to provide a sample of DNA to the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”) for analysis and storage in a data bank that is maintained by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”). The DNA profiles can be released from the bank “to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers upon a request made in furtherance of an official investigation of any criminal offense.” The statute applies to anyone convicted of a felony and incarcerated on or after July 1st, 2000.

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

DNA testing should be awarded to all who claim innocence. It is too expensive to carry out DNA testing for every person who is suspected of a crime. It should be done for those who truly believe they are innocent and have evidence in favor of their claim. According to the Innocence Project, the Justice for All Act was established into federal law in 2004. This law awards federal inmates that claim innocence DNA testing. It also grants funding to the states that give the DNA

Generally the police require a court order to collect DNA unless they have been convicted of a crime. Under federal law, the government obliges individuals arrested for specific unlawful acts to give DNA samples. These laws violates the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which ensures “the right to the individuals to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Familial searching is a violation of privacy. Just as how the famous stop-and-frisk was deemed unconstitutional this should be also. From knowing how some law enforcement officers have been corrupt in the past it is hard to believe that with such power of having access to others DNA they are not going to be as corrupt and convict people for crimes they didn’t do, most specifically being people of color. Just as how the stop-and-frisk targeted people of color this too will be just the same. This will cause police officers to have an even worst reputation that they do today, and it will cause distrust and rebel in communities. Just because a family member is a criminal does not mean that the entire family needs to be dragged into that mess,

DNA evidence is extremely helpful in criminal trials not only because it can determine the guilt of a suspect, but also because it can keep innocent people from going to jail. The suspect must leave a sample of their DNA at the crime scene in order for testing to occur, but DNA can be found in the form of many things such as semen, blood, hair, saliva, or skin scrapings. According to Newsweek, "thousands of people have been convicted by DNA's nearly miraculous ability to search out suspects across space and time… hundreds of innocent people have also been freed, often after years behind bars, sometimes just short of the death chamber" (Adler ). Though some may think it is a waste of time to go

The Newest Law commencing this January makes the police enter all convicted felons DNA into the system. The new laws IC code is 10-13-6-8 the code allows convicted criminals; persons arrested for a felony; crime scene specimens; unidentified missing persons; and close biological relatives of missing persons to be DNA tested and entered into the Data base. Although it is possible to have your DNA removed from the system such as: if three hundred sixty-five days have elapsed since the person's arrest; no felony charges have been filed against the person; and the person wishes to have the person's DNA removed from the data base. A pro of DNA testing is everyone that commits a felony is tested and you could possibly solve another crime from DNA

I believe that we should not establish a DNA database for all citizens. Having a persons DNA profile can tell a lot about the person, some things people may consider private. The potential for abuse of this information is extremely high. Many people would be put at risk if their information were to end up in the wrong hands. People enjoy their privacy and wouldn’t be too pleased to