Should the government be allowed to collect your DNA—and retain it indefinitely—if you're arrested for a low-level offense like shoplifting a tube of lipstick, driving without a valid license, or walking your dog off leash? We don't think so. As we argue in an amicus brief filed in support of a case called Thompson v. Spitzer at the California Court of Appeal, this practice not only impinges on misdemeanor arrestees' privacy and liberty rights, but also violates the California Constitution.
Since 2007, the Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA) has been running an expansive program that coerces thousands of Orange County residents annually to provide a DNA sample in exchange for dropping charges for low-level misdemeanor offenses. Through the program, the OCDA has amassed a database of over 182,000 DNA profiles, larger than the DNA databases of 25 states. OCDA claims a right to indefinitely retain the DNA samples it collects and to share them with third parties who may use them in new and unknown ways in the future. Unlike state and federal arrestee DNA databases, OCDA does not allow anyone to have their DNA expunged from its database.
[...] The OCDA's DNA collection has serious implications for privacy and liberty, not just for the low-level arrestees who give up their DNA under the program, but also their biological relatives and wider communities. As the collection and analysis of DNA has become cheaper and more accessible over the past 30 years, law enforcement has pushed to collect more DNA, extract more information from DNA, and, through familial searching, use DNA to identify more and more people.
[...] California law authorizes state and local police to collect DNA from people convicted of crimes and anyone arrested for a felony. It does not authorize the collection of DNA from people arrested for misdemeanors, and Californians have explicitly rejected attempts to change that. The OCDA has been getting around this fact by offering to drop arrestees' charges in exchange for their DNA. The prosecutor's office claims arrestees have "consented" to the collection of their DNA and waived their constitutional rights.
[...] Given the significant privacy and liberty concerns implicated by Orange County's program, we argued in our amicus brief that it violates the California Constitution's privacy clause. With all of the information that DNA can reveal about people's traits, their biological relatives, and their genetic predisposition for certain illnesses and diseases, it is clear that people have a protected privacy interest in their DNA. This is no less true for misdemeanor arrestees. We urge the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court's decision dismissing the case and allow the case to proceed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 13 2022, @07:47PM (8 children)
Coercion has never been considered to be consent, except by prosecutors. And, no one should ever "waive" their rights. Doing so is the same as waving your rights bye-bye.
And, this fits right into my refusal to recognize any "rights" by government or by corporations to collect people's data. Every bit of that data belongs to the people arrested, NOT to the police, the prosecutors, or to the state, or any agency of the state or local governments. Personal data is personal data, and no one has any authority to collect it, unless informed consent is given. Data has value, and the person it belongs to should expect payment for any data collected.
Oh, wait, does anyone here believe that the data collected in Orange County stays in Orange County? Think again - that data is going to be available to every police agency in the world, just for the asking. Contractors willl also have free access to the data, even if the data isn't sold further on. And, I won't ask anyone to believe that last. If you have enough money to dump into Orange County's coffers, you can collect all the data they have.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by captain normal on Sunday November 13 2022, @07:58PM
As an aside, I would like to point out that Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer is a right wing Republican.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sjolfr on Sunday November 13 2022, @08:58PM (3 children)
Without these lawsuits the law-authorities will continue to march forward gathering anything and everything that may be of use in to the future. We need more lawsuits and more laws accross the nation to fight this kind of BS.
Even WITH laws to prevent it our federal government does it anyway - regardless of which of the two main parties they belong to. More people need to think beyond their one-issue, partisan, voting preferences.
The default should be privacy regardless of the technology.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @02:26AM (2 children)
Anyone tried to discuss legality with a police officer?
They have the power to muck you up in more paperwork and courts. And are held completely harmless for what they have put you through, even if you are venerated in court.
They have the gun. You don't. Whoever has the gun makes the rules.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @04:54AM
You're not supposed to fight on the street or talk law to the police, potentially incriminating yourself. You fight it later in court, preferably with a lawyer on your side. You may be able to bring a Section 1983 civil rights claim if your rights have been violated.
The court is not a great place for you to be, but it's better than arguing with a cop who can put you down and get away with it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mhajicek on Monday November 14 2022, @06:31AM
You should also have a gun.
But more applicable to the situation, you should have a camera rolling.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Monday November 14 2022, @04:33AM (2 children)
People willingly give up their DNA and personal info to corporations all the time. At least on paper the government isn't using it to market or sell. If you've been advised of your rights and you choose to give up the dna vs the misdemeanor, that's on you.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 14 2022, @06:36AM (1 child)
Corporations: undue influence. Government: under duress.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Monday November 14 2022, @09:30AM
If it were offered for a felony, absolutely under duress.
For a misdemeanor? I am less inclined to believe that puts people under duress.
I am not sanctioning what the government is doing. Ethically it's shady to be sure. I'm just saying it isn't illegal or denying anyone their rights.
(Score: 5, Funny) by janrinok on Sunday November 13 2022, @08:25PM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Funny) by inertnet on Sunday November 13 2022, @11:28PM
We will now collect your DNA. And that of the bug.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2022, @09:14PM
Current message of the day:
Mencken and Nathan's Second Law of The Average American: All the postmasters in small towns read all the postcards.