Learning about The Fourth Amendment through Module 2 has been so eye opening
for me. Of course, I knew what the amendment was, but had never looked at it
regarding DNA. I’m very torn on this because there could be so many different
viewpoints. The Fourth Amendment is meant to prevent government entities from
searching or seizing homes, belongings or the body of the accuses without probable
cause or without a warrant. So, what does that mean in terms of DNA, something
that is technically apart of your person?
Thinking of the obtaining of a person’s DNA without conviction but during booking,
through my own perspective as a mom and assault survivor seems reasonable to
me. One could argue if you are in the situation where you are being booked, there is
a good chance you committed or had part in committing a crime. Just typing that
sounds so harsh to me, and I don’t wholeheartedly believe that because I would
rather give everyone the benefit of the doubt. However, if a person were
apprehended during or following a crime such as sexual or aggravated assault, and
the accuser was able to positively and without a doubt identify their attacker, I am
all for that. I think it would be beneficial just to the community to have their DNA on
file if the accused were ever to commit an aggravated crime again.
And then you have the perspective of the accused, whether guilty or not. Something
I always go back to is 10 years ago when my husband was pulled over for a routine
traffic stop because he had expired tags. My husband provided all proper
identification and cooperated respectively with the police officer. As the police
officer turned away, he stated he smelled Marijuana coming from the car, which
there was not, and stated he had reasonable cause to search his vehicle. While
searching the vehicle, he found our nephews wallet in the back seat. Our nephew is
about our age and had been living with us and using my husband’s car. The police
officer then accused my husband of stealing the wallet, read him his rights and
arrested him for petty theft. Once he was arrested, he was booked and
fingerprinted. Eventually, his dad who is a sheriff in a neighboring county was able
to come and explain to the police that he did not steal the wallet, his nephew left it
in the car by mistake. They did allow his nephew to come in, sign a waiver and took
his statement stating he had not had his wallet stolen and he had left it in my
husband’s car. While this was a misunderstanding, and my husband was not
charged, it is still something he is so uneasy about. When they ran his fingerprints
for his most recent job, they were able to show that he had his prints in a criminal
database and even though he was innocent it did shame him.
With that in mind, I do believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. On that
aspect I see where taking a person’s DNA could be quite invasive. In the event they
are guilty, and their DNA has been obtained, yes, it is great for the community but
then they may be portrayed as guilty when it has not been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if someone is wrongfully arrested and booked
and their DNA is taken, I feel like it is an invasion of privacy. Yes, that person may
be proven not guilty, however that will stay with them their entire life. No matter
what happens, that DNA will always be there linked to a possible crime.
I believe all the branches would be affected, but mostly the courts and corrections.
Through the courts, I think already having a DNA sample obtained may not give
them the right to what they feel is a fair trial. If a person were to be wrongfully
convicted, and this continues to happen due to obtaining DNA, the prisons may
become overcrowded, or prisoners may be released who may not be ready to
rehabilitate back to their communities.
I hope you all have a great weekend!
-Rye
