SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The ACLU has sued the San Diego Police Department, seeking the destruction of DNA samples collected from minors during a stop that was found to be unlawful:
Specifically targeting black children for unlawful DNA collection is a gross abuse of technology by law enforcement. But it's exactly what the San Diego Police Department is doing, according to a lawsuit just filed by the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties on behalf of one of the families affected. SDPD's actions, as alleged in the complaint, illustrate the severe and very real threats to privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights presented by granting law enforcement access to our DNA. SDPD must stop its discriminatory abuse of DNA collection technology.
According to the ACLU's complaint, on March 30, 2016, police officers stopped five African American minors as they were walking through a park in southeast San Diego. There was no legal basis for the stop. As an officer admitted at a hearing in June 2016, they stopped the boys simply because they were black and wearing blue on what the officers believed to be a gang "holiday."
Despite having no valid basis for the stop, and having determined that none of the boys had any gang affiliation or criminal record, the officers handcuffed at least some of the boys and searched all of their pockets. They found nothing but still proceeded to search the bag of one of the boys—P.D., a plaintiff in the ACLU's case. (It's standard to use minors' initials, rather than their full names, in court documents.) The officers found an unloaded revolver, which was lawfully registered to the father of one of the boys, and arrested P.D.
The officers told the other four boys that they could go free after submitting to a mouth swab. The officers had them sign a consent form, by which they "voluntarily" agreed to provide their DNA to the police for inclusion in SDPD's local DNA database. The officers then swabbed their cheeks and let them go.
P.D. was then told to sign the form as well. After he signed, the officers swabbed his cheek and transported him to the police department. The San Diego District Attorney filed numerous charges against P.D., but they were all dropped as a result of the illegal stop. The court did not, however, order the police to destroy either P.D.'s DNA sample or the DNA profile generated via his sample. The ACLU seeks destruction of the sample and profile, along with a permanent injunction "forbidding SDPD officers from obtaining DNA from minors without a judicial order, warrant, or parental consent."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 17 2017, @11:37PM
We don't do that, for the very good reason that it's pretty damned unfair to impose delays and damage on the majority of passing people who have done nothing wrong.
But we do have DUI checkpoints. People 'justify' such unconstitutional nonsense by saying that driving a car on public roads is a privilege and therefore the government can arbitrarily force you to submit to any conditions it wants in exchange for the continued existence of your driving privileges, but people who make arguments like that are disgusting authoritarians. Maybe we should have checkpoints for people who walk on sidewalks or TSA thugs at public buses and trains (I think they've already begun this to some extent). Living in a particular city also isn't an absolute necessity, so maybe the government there should be able to arbitrarily suspend people's constitutional rights and tell people that they have the option to leave if they don't like it. I'm not sure where in the Constitution it says that the government can force you to surrender your rights in exchange for you being able to make use of a supposed privilege, but 'the ends justify the means'-type authoritarians seem to be able to find anything they want in that document when they're not ignoring it entirely.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday February 18 2017, @12:18AM
No, those are the rationalizations people use. The justification is when the situation gets out of control people will accept measures they wouldn't under more peaceful ones, and that is really all the justification required; most people will do what is needed and worry about rationalizing it later. Enough drunk drivers kill enough people and you see DUI checkpoints on Fri and Sat nights. Crime gets bad, and assuming one is living in a sane area (i.e. not ruled by Team Blue), the police start using their spideysense without worrying overly much about anklebiters at the ACLU. People get a sense the country is ruled by people who hate them, we get Trump as a reaction as the polite "muh constitution" token opposition finds itself replaced by the alt-right. Civilization is just a then veneer, it doesn't take much existential threat start changing the rules.
The whole world is going into chaos at the moment, as that happens r turns to K and suddenly the rules will change worldwide. Ingrouping, law and order, violence properly directed at the chaotic, etc. will become the order of the day. This will bring stability, peace and plenty again and the wheel will turn once more. This will keep happening until we finally accept what we are and begin designing our civilization around it somehow. But the first step is recognizing the problem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 18 2017, @12:31AM
The justification is when the situation gets out of control people will accept measures they wouldn't under more peaceful ones, and that is really all the justification required; most people will do what is needed and worry about rationalizing it later.
Maybe that's all that's needed for cowardly, worthless authoritarians, but in the 'Give me liberty or give me death.' country, you'd think most people would be less cowardly and useless.
Crime gets bad, and assuming one is living in a sane area (i.e. not ruled by Team Blue)
Neither party is sane and neither party respects our rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18 2017, @02:12AM
The 'give me liberty or give me death' crowd WERE the ones who stood up, did their patriotic duty, etc.
You know what happened to them? They died for cowards, many before having the chance to breed. Those that did get a chance to breed often then stood up domestically for the world they wanted for themselves and their offspring. They were hammered down. Some of their children followed in their footsteps and ended up in either previously discussed situation. Those that didn't had the sense to become cowards and acquiesce to the majorities demands.
That is the situation that allowed America to reach where it is today.
I can't comment on other places in the world, but I imagine you could follow similar trends for who bred and who had commercial/political/etc success for not standing behind their principles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18 2017, @05:07AM
Free and brave lost! Get over it!