In 2007 a Tennessee law was passed, as many bad laws are, in the aftermath of a horrific crime. Johnia Berry was violently murdered. Her parents asked State Senator Ron Ramsey to consider working with a national DNA database to assist in the investigation. Senator Ramsey introduced a bill mandating collection of DNA from those arrested for violent felonies in Tennessee. It passed and is now law in Tennessee and 23 other states.
In one of those “It’s a small world” moments, years later a misdemeanor suspect voluntarily offered up a DNA sample. It was matched to DNA from the Berry crime scene. The suspect was arrested for the crime but committed suicide before trial. He was not identified through any provision of the law, but the connection is close enough that people make the mistake of seeing it as an example of how the law benefits Tennesseans.
This year Lt Governor Ramsey, wants to expand the scope of the bill. SB 257 mandates collection of DNA from all persons arrested for any felony in Tennessee. Connected as it is to the murder of Johnia Berry, some proponents ask “Do you favor the law or do you favor letting Johnia Berry’s murderer remain free?” Others say it’s no different from photos and fingerprints. Detractors frame it via the 4th and 5th Amendments and question requiring a citizen to surrender a part of “their person” for a criminal case which might “[compel him] … to be a witness against himself …” not to mention being deprived of his “property” without “due process.”
The bill additionally requires that, in the event charges are dropped or the accused is not convicted, the DNA sample taken at his arrest would be destroyed. This would seem to be an acknowledgment of the bill’s Constitutional problems. If the true bottom line for the sample’s retention is conviction, why not simply delay collection until then? Opponents I have talked to would support the bill if that one change were to be made. I am a member of that group.
A significant number of the bill’s opponents also distrust that the samples are “safe” in the custody of the government. Once collected, it is unclear exactly what happens to them. Given they are due to be destroyed under certain circumstances, it is clear there is some reservation as to the government having them in the first place. As many as 15% of the samples taken may be subject to this later destruction. But will they be merely stored until the case against the donor is disposed of? Will the sample be processed and compared against the national database to see if the DNA matches another sample in the system? Who is responsible for collection, processing, storage, payment and final disposition of the sample? These questions remain unanswered. Lt Governor Ramsey is confident penalties for failure to destroy or for misuse of samples are sufficient safeguard. Others remain suspicious of government’s track record as a watchdog for individual rights.
Such suspicion is downplayed by supporters of the bill. Then one reads the Feds are poised to take a technological breakthrough in genetic testing and expand their ravaging of individual rights by handing it over to, of all things, TSA for implementation. The controversies surrounding TSA and its use of technology and practice to abuse and violate citizens guilty only of wanting to catch a plane is well documented.
There are many questions to be asked here, too. Chiefly, under what circumstances would a DNA sample be legally required at an airport checkpoint? It is my opinion that handing over a portable, high speed genetic testing device to TSA will lead to an exponential increase in the lawless and reckless disregard of individual liberties by this particular government agency. Further, just as with the backscatter scanners, implementing it in such a public and high profile arena will not serve to make us more secure. It will merely soften the average citizen’s resolve to resist the unlawful infiltration of the state into the lives of citizens.
Technical innovation is welcomed by the law abiding. But we don’t sanction violating one law while enforcing another. The pursuit of justice must not itself create injustices and securing the rights of the people must remain the highest priority of government. A good start would be to alter Tennessee’s SB 257 to collect samples after conviction and to completely halt the introduction of portable DNA scanners until after the ethics and problems inherent in such technology have been fully explored.
I don't get what the big deal is. So what if a person's DNA is collected and added to a national database if said person volunteers it or it was collected in the course of investigating a violent crime? I don't have a problem with that.
Hell, I wouldn't care if we started collecting DNA samples of everyone at birth. Then again, I'm not paranoid of "Big Brother", either.
On the plus side, your blog entry sounds a lot less mewling and whiny than comparable KNS pieces. Thank you very much for that, at least.
Ramsey is wrong on this issue. No government has any legitimate authority except for defending life and property. Life and property cannot be at the same time defended and attacked. This is a preemptive attack on life and property, therefore it is not defensive. It would be defensive if implemented only after conviction.
The post title is what pulls the reader in but you buried your lead. If I were writing this I’d make sure to put the most important information including the conclusion up front and follow that with all the fact-gathering and logic that gets you to your conclusion.
@ Brian -
Thanks for the comment. At issue is not THE collection of a DNA sample, rather WHEN is that sample collected. If we, as Americans, believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty, then nothing that serves as a penalty for guilt ought to apply to anyone yet to be convicted of a crime, even a violent one. I know of no one who objects to requiring the collection of a DNA sample after someone is convicted of a felony. Many people, myself among them, have serious issues with mandating that collection simply because I have been arrested. The matter is further compounded in that it is unclear what is done with the sample after my arrest and before any chance at conviction.
I am not paranoid of "Big Brother", nor are any of the opponents of the bill which I am familiar with. But I do believe that the primary job of government, as articulated as a self evident truth in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure the rights of the people. As I wrote, my objections are that there are any number of ways which this bill could be seen as unconstitutional, particularly in the area of due process.
Law enforcement cannot simply search me, my car or my home for no reason. To obtain a search warrant granting them access to my "persons, houses, papers, and effects" or to arrest me, depriving me of my liberty, they must follow due process and show probable cause. This is a real issue in that it is unclear how any collected sample is to be treated.
It is fine with me if you take a DNA swab to compare to DNA found at the scene of the crime for which I was arrested. That will help convict or exonerate me for that crime. However, comparing that DNA to any database of any sort would both violate my 5th Amendment right not to be forced to incriminate myself as well as my 4th Amendment rights to be secure from unreasonable search in connection to any other crimes out there to which such random comparisons might link me without the government having shown cause or followed due process in obtaining my DNA for such a comparison.
It's like a Search Warrant. They are very specific in what the authorities have demonstrated they have probable cause to expect to find where they want to search. But a search warrant for my house, office and computers looking for evidence of money laundering which turns up evidence of my involvement in smuggling antiquities or counterfeiting would not allow the government to charge me with two more crimes. Because they had no idea of my other activities, I cannot be hung for them. It is the government's job to prove my guilt, I am not required to prove my innocence. Nor am I required to assist them in making their case against me.
I could offer more explanation of the issues but I think you get the picture. I encourage you to stand up for your rights at all times and especially when it's not serious. As long as you do, you will always have rights to defend. As soon as you abdicate your responsibility to defend the rights of yourself and others, you are well over halfway to losing those rights altogether.
@Beagle – I wondered about that very thing while writing. Thanks for the critique. I'll one day graduate from chihuahuascout or shi-tzuscout status to that of a true BeagleScout and make you proud …
@BCM, in order:
* As stated before, I wouldn't mind it personally if DNA were collected from every human at birth. Think what a DNA database like that could mean for both law enforcement AND medical research.
I truly do not understand why you are so defensive of your DNA.
* I disagree. I view the collection of DNA as one would view the collection of most types of evidence gathered in a routine investigation, and as such, argue that due process isn't violated as long as the proper permissions required by law to obtain said evidence have been secured. Especially in regard to the example you provided (an individual that voluntarily gave a DNA sample, as opposed to being forced).
If you don't "fear Big Brother", then I apologize for the assumption, but am at a loss as to why you believe due process is being violated otherwise.
* First, SB 257 appears to explicitly state that an individual must be arrested AND CHARGED with a felony in order to be eligible for DNA collection – not simply arrested. Since it's extremely difficult to secure both an arrest AND successfully lodge charges against an individual without supporting evidence, AND since the law in question is clearly structured in a way that prevents collection of the DNA sample in question before being arrested and charged, it stands to reason that supporting evidence of a crime would already exist before DNA was collected, since said supporting evidence would be necessary in order to secure the arrest warrant and lodge charges in the first place.
Agree or disagree?
* I disagree, if only for the simple fact that it is the duty of law enforcement to run these kinds of cross-checks on suspected criminals. Outstanding arrest warrants are checked; I would argue DNA should be as well.
Unfortunately, SB 257 seems to agree more with you than they do with me – I'd rather keep the samples regardless of guilt or innocence; SB 257 clearly mandates that any and all samples and records related to innocent parties should be wiped from said database.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. So I'm curious – with all of the built-in protections regarding sample destruction and law enforcement's long-standing responsibility of investigating the backgrounds of most (should be all) arrested persons, why are you so concerned about self-incrimination – especially since you seem to be the law-abiding type? If you have nothing to hide, then why are you concerned? And why would you want people that might actually HAVE something to hide to be able to so easily avoid detection?
* Wow. Maybe you DO have something to hide, then. I don't have a problem with multiple unrelated charges if the charge that initiated the search that turned up the evidence on the crimes discovered after the fact stuck. (Can't be going around initiating investigations as "fishing trips", after all.) Nor can I imagine why any law-abiding citizen would.
* Thanks for the advice. That's why I support SB 257. I don't need criminals infringing upon my right to quiet enjoyment of a law-abiding society, and will always defend that right against anyone that seeks to take it from me – especially by making it that much easier for criminals and their supporting ilk to operate.
Much better response than the vitriol usually served by KNS staff, too. I may not agree with you, Mr. Marrero, but perhaps the knoxnews.com site should just give it up and hotlink to your blog for its Perspectives section instead of the dreadfully transparent, cookie-cutter columnists they seem to trot out every Friday. Well done, even if we never agree on anything.
@ Brian -
Once again, thanks for the comment. Your position would seem to be that of the Lt Governor and others who support the bill. I cannot in good conscience agree with it. But there is no need to disagree in a disagreeable fashion so I'm glad we have remained friends.
One final note, as I mentioned, it's the "when" that is the issue. The 15% figure that I reference came from the Lt Governor himself. Given that our judicial system, adversarial though it may be, purports to defend the rights of the accused, given that we presume innocence until guilt is proven and given that these positions are often phrased as "Better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted;" I would argue that tradition, history and law are on my side.
What possible reason could the Lt Governor have for insisting that he get 15% more DNA samples, which will be destroyed ultimately after significant expense to local governments or to the state, when he could garner almost universal support for his bill and avoid even the appearance of violating people's rights by simply moving the point of collection to after a conviction?
[...] Crossposted. [...]
Dear Ken:
Very well stated case against this bill but I for one would go one step further in supporting your argument, the information contained in a DNA sample is huge, far beyond the simple identification of an individual. We are talking about the very genetic make up of each human being, we now know this information contains the predispositions for certain illnesses, and we have no way of knowing how much more information we will learn from the DNA strand. As is often said, information is power, and I say power is what this government definitely needs less of. I can not cite a single example of where government has not abused or over reached the limited authority granted it by the people and see this as a bill filled with good intentions and a limited understanding of the unintended consequences.
[...] for violent felonies in Tennessee. It passed and is now law in Tennessee and 23 other states. Read The Full Story Comments closed | Trackback [...]
To expand on Kent Greenough's thoughts
There are no limits on what DNA can be used for in this bill, it only sets how it must be obtained. What if in the future there is a gene that we find that might make people more prone to murder? It's limitless for the unknown and DNA. I do not feel the government should have that opportunity.
Why does Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey want to forcefully steal DNA from people who are innocent?
Besides governmental agencies, who has been lobbying for the passage of this bill?
Will this DNA database be shared with the Feds?
Who else will have access or copies of the DNA database?
How will we know if the DNA in the database is actually deleted and not just kept on file?
What penalties exist for government employees who copy, transfer, or neglect to delete the DNA in the database of those who are not convicted?
Perhaps Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey is wanting to steer some major state DNA testing bucks toward the medical lab testing franchise in Johnson City that is owned by his radio evangelist friend, Blountville neighbor, and Tennessee Regulatory Authority Director Kenneth C. Hill (and his son TNGA Rep. Matthew Hill is also in on the Johnson City medical lab test franchise as well):
http://www.anylabtestnow.com/Johnson_City.aspx
TRA Director Hill needs the state business as the 501(c)(3) Appalachian Educational Communication Corporation that he heads up (TRA Director Hill is paid $150,000 base pay per year by Tennessee taxpayers, yet TRA Director Hill also reportedly worked 60 hour weeks at AECC during 2009) d.b.a. WHCB FM,& the Cameo Theater — and Director Hill's non-profit spent almost a half million dollars more than AECC received during the 2009 tax year:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2009/521/2...
Related: TNGA Re. Matthew Hill has filed HB0514 that provides a measure court relief to shaky non-profits:
*HB 0514 by *Hill ( SB 0535 by *McNally)
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default….
Taxes, Exemption and Credits – As introduced, delays collection efforts for any taxpayer with not-for-profit status pending final outcome of litigation challenging tax assessment on ground that taxpayer was tax-exempt. – Amends TCA Title 48 and Title 67.
@Elmer …
Perhaps. Or perhaps the Lt Governor is taking his responsibilities and is exploring ways to better protect the citizens of Tennessee. I cannot support or condone the suggestions that such legislation is merely a way to enrich his friends.
The notion is easy to suggest and serves to soil the character and integrity of a man by suggestion. The problem is that proof is in short supply.
Such accusations without proof are mere innuendo at best and character assassination at worst. Further, as I have commented each time you come by, given that you hide behind an anonymous screen name while tossing around the names and business of others, you do yourself no favors in the "How do I know Elmer is a trusted source?" category.
Until I know who you really are, all you are to me is an anonymous, drive by commenter who is long on conjecture and drawing conclusions and way too short on facts.
The sad thing is that you may be correct about some things but we'll never know because you make it so easy to dismiss what you say. Something to think about …
This bill would not have prevented Johnia Berry's murder. Hardly anything leads me to believe this bill will prevent ANY deaths at all.
I don't think this bill is worth the erosion of our legal process. A person should at least have the right to their attorney before some rogue cop gets access to taking samples from you.
Personally i also do not feel the government should have that opportunity.