Virginia upholds DNA testing on arrest

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:42:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Virginia is the only state in the Union that allows the taking of DNA for certain violent felonies. On Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the suspicionless taking of DNA from a rape suspect in 2003 that linked him to a 1991 "cold case" rape.

The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in 2006, and the Virginia Supreme Court, finding the taking of DNA no different than fingerprinting, upheld the suspicionless and probable cause-less taking of the same that linked the defendant to the 1991 rape. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 2007 Va. LEXIS 115 (September 14, 2007).

More...

For a fuller explanation of this dangerous precedent, one allowing any person arrested to be compared to all cold cases in CODIS, see the post on www.FourthAmendment.com. What happens when the cold case is solved based on an arrest and the person is tried on the cold case first? The defendant should get to try to suppression hearing of the current case in the cold case, but it does not really matter to Virginia because the question of probable cause or reasonable suspicion is irrelevant. The accused would have to be acquitted of the current crime to suppress. I'm sure the Virginia court would find a way around that.

< NORML Founder Arrested in Boston For Smoking Joint | Sunday Open Thread and Diary Rescue >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Virginia upholds DNA testing on arrest | 5 comments (5 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"dangers" (none / 0) (#1)
by diogenes on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 09:05:38 PM EST

How about the dangers of having someone free on a "cold case"?
How exactly is this different from running an arrested person's fingerprints through a cold case computer bank?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#2)
by cpinva on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:53:15 AM EST

if i read this correctly, va allows the taking of DNA for those arrested only for "certain violent felonies", not all crimes. in this case, the individual was not merely a "suspect" in a violent felony, he was arrested. as part of the standard "booking" process, DNA swabs were taken, as well as his fingerprints. both were used to determine if he appeared to be a suspect in any other crimes.

i have to agree with the va sc on this: how is the taking of DNA different from the taking of fingerprints? the primary difference is that DNA yields a higher probability of being correct in identification than fingerprints do.

i just don't see this as a crack in the 4th amendment.

Taking DNA..... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:41:26 PM EST

is a bigger intrusion than fingerprints.

I'll be damned if I'll let a cop take my blood, spit, or bodily waste to store in some database.


: If I believed for a second.... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:38:34 PM EST

that a DNA database would never be misused, I might not see the harm...but I don't believe that, not even for a second.
The skin and our orifices seems like a good place to draw the line of intrusion.
If a suspect wants to volunteer their DNA, that's one thing....but I cannot support letting the state have the right to take DNA samples by force. Just too damn scary.

"Virginia is for LOVERS"... (none / 0) (#6)
by BlueBerry PickN on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:53:04 PM EST

"... but ... not HUMAN RIGHTS"

that'll make a hell of a promotional tourism video...

convenient for railroading activists & liberal politicians, not just the Poor

Wow, Hitler would be jealous.

Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
We, two, form a Multitude ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"