The Police Will Soon Be Able To Test DNA In The Field In Just 90 Minutes

[FarCenter]

Current human DNA tests take two to three weeks to be completed, and must be sent into an accredited laboratory. But a new rapid test, which could analyze human DNA in 90 minutes in the field, is nearly complete, Pentagon and industry officials told USA Today.

The change to an exponentially faster, mobile test will have huge implications for for law enforcement, war crimes investigations and immigration, Chris Asplen, the executive director of the Global Alliance for Rapid DNA Testing, told the paper.

"When it comes to solving crime (not proving it in court but actually using DNA to find the killer, rapist, burglar, etc.) the value of DNA as an investigative tool is directly proportional to the speed at which it can be leveraged in any given investigation," Asplen said.

Read more: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/90-minute-dna-screening-available-soon-law-enforcement?cmpid=newscred

[Politicalboi]

1. Next up

DNA to get a drivers license. Which will help collect some bad guys, but still intrusive. But then again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

[BadgerKid]

5. That sounds like a HIPAA violation.

Any whiff of it happening should result in complaints to HHS.gov

[TeeYiYi]

27. DNA will be tied to flying...

Driver's licenses and passports; quick DNA checks by the TSA... It's coming.

TYY

[democratisphere]

2. Tattooed barcodes on the forehead and RFID chip implants are just around the corner.

What a 'wonderful world' it will be!!

[Jenoch]

3. They better have a good reason to collect and test DNA.

I do not think 'probable cause' is enough. I also do not believe the implied consent statutes apply to this situation.

[hobbit709]

6. "Probable cause" pretty much went out the door with the drug laws.

[JJChambers]

8. Why?

Why isn't probable cause enough?

[Jenoch]

10. Are you serious?

What probable cause would make it ok to take my DNA?

With driving there is imolied consent to take your breath sample, blood, or urine. You can refuse but then lose your driving privileges. Even in criminal cases it takes a court order to take someone's DNA.

[JJChambers]

11. Really?

There are plenty of offenses for which DNA is taken at the time of arrest. The threshold for arrest is probable cause. More, I think probable cause is the appropriate standard here -- it's the standard for an arrest and the standard for obtaining a search warrant. It stands to reason that it would be the appropriate standard for obtaining DNA.

I really don't see why people would hesitate to provide DNA. I don't think we should make it easier on criminals to commit crime anonymously. Rape victims have it bad enough; I don't see a need to protect a rapists' right to commit rape anonymously.

[Jenoch]

12. Your last point is a straw man argument.

I am unaware of cases where SNA can be taken without either permission or a court order. (4th Amendment) I would be will to be made aware of such instances if you provide links.

Edit: Yes, probable cause is the standard to obtain a search warrant. Without a court order, siezing DNA seems like unreasonable search and siezure.

Just because I support the 4th Amendment does not mean I support rape. Again, strawman argument.

[JJChambers]

13. Here you go

http://www.theeveningtimes.com/articles/2009/04/23/news/news2.txt

One example showing some offenses for which DNA is taken at the time of arrest in this particular state.

I'm not setting up a straw man with my point about DNA and rape. I think society's interest in quickly apprehending violent sexual predators outweighs society's interest in keeping our DNA anonymous. What tangible benefit does society get from that anonymity? We are protecting a rapists ability to rape anonymously -- there must be some reason.

[Jenoch]

14. In parts of England they have taken, by force,

the DNA of all adult males in a particular area in their search for a rape suspect. Are you ok with that?

I disagree with that Arkansas law. If the person is a viable suspect, then it should not be difficult to get a court order.

What's the deal with that link? They don't have the date when the law was passed or went into effect.

[X_Digger]

16. There is no higher standard for a search than probable cause.

Probable cause gets a search warrant, arrest, fingerprinting..

What standard would you use?!?

[Jenoch]

17. For what?

[X_Digger]

18. You said..

"I do not think 'probable cause' is enough."

So.. what standard would you apply?

[Jenoch]

19. Probable cause is not enough to

take a DNA sample without permission. The probable cause needs to be used to get a court order to take a DNA sample.

[X_Digger]

22. I don't think you understand what probable cause is.

Probable cause leads to arrest.

Probable cause leads to a search warrant.

Probable cause leads to involuntary fingerprinting.

Probable cause leads to an involuntary BAC blood test.

All those are preceded by a judge issuing a warrant.

What, you think there's some kind of probable cause leading to a search without a warrant?!?

[Jenoch]

25. If azcop pulls somebody over

making a turn without a turn signal and sees drug paraphernalia on the floor, tgat is probable cause to search the car. They do not need a search warrant.

JJ upthread apparently bieves probable cause alone is enough to take a DNA sample. I do not believe it is. That is my point on this thread.

[X_Digger]

26. You still haven't said what standard you think *is* appropriate.

Do you feel the same way about fingerprints?

A cop in those circumstances still has to justify that search at trial.

[Jenoch]

28. You seem to be confused.

If somebody is pulled over because a tail light is out, the cops cannot take finger prints. Once the person is under arrest and in custody they can. I don't think DNA is in the same category as fingerprints.

[X_Digger]

29. Probable cause is required for both. The same exact standard.

And fingerprints also uniquely identify a person (barring mathematical improbabilities).

It's you who I think doesn't actually understand what probable cause means.

[Jenoch]

30. You are confused.

My point is not simply about probable cause. I know what probable cause is, do not belabor that point. I do not think probable cause should be enough to take DNA from a suspect. A court order should be necessary. Cops should not be allowed to take DNA from suspects willy nilly until they get a match. They need to have enough evidence against a suspect so a judge will issue an order.

[X_Digger]

32. What does it take to get a court order? PROBABLE CAUSE. *sigh*

It would be the same probable cause that would be required for an arrest, search warrant, or roadside search. Christ on a cracker.

What do you think happens when you refuse to take a breathalyzer at a roadside DUI checkpoint?

You are compelled by court order at the jail or medical facility (varies by jurisdiction) to give up a sample of your blood. The probable cause is articulated to a judge (sometimes over the phone, sometimes in person) and the order is signed. That probable cause has to be relevant to the search performed- they're not checking your cholesterol, they're looking for substances that would impair your driving.

What, you think the standard for a 'court order' is different than that for an arrest / booking / search / etc?!?!

*shaking my head*

[Jenoch]

35. Probable cause is what allows a cop to

pull a car over. It is also enough for an arrest. I think it is not enough to compell a person to give up their DNA against their will. I think that should require a court order.

In my state a driver does not legally have to submit to a breath test, a urine test, or a blood test for a DUI where no injuries have occurred and no other laws have been broken (nontraffic laws).

[X_Digger]

36. A cop can pull you over based on multiple standards.

If a cop sees you plow into a mailbox, ie, witness a moving violation, he can pull you over.

If he sees you weaving across the center line, that's probable cause to pull you over and run a field sobriety test.

If your car's description matches a report in the area of one that just clipped a pedestrian in a hit and run, that's reasonable suspicion enough to pull you over and check things out.

PROBABLE CAUSE is the standard used to get an arrest warrant, a search warrant, or a blood sample.

[Jenoch]

37. I don't disagree with anything in this post of yours.

Why all of the angst?

[X_Digger]

38. Because you don't seem to understand that a court order requires the same PROBABLE CAUSE..

.. that you think is somehow different than the PROBABLE CAUSE for a roadside search or arrest.

[Jenoch]

39. Will you let it go?

I want a judge making decisions about who's DNA is taken, not some 24 year old cop.

I have told you my opinion, I have two brothers who are cops. I know what probable cause is.

[JJChambers]

33. Silly

It's not silly nilly it probable cause is the standard. Even reasonable suspicous wouldn't be considered "willy nilly" -- probable cause is the appropriate standard.

[Jenoch]

34. Lrobable cause is the standard to go to court

in an attempt to get a court order.

[linuxman]

4. Oh man.

I feel safer already. Does anybody else?

[seveneyes]

7. A free Judge Dread with every testing kit

The docket moves to the street.

[Earth_First]

9. Next step: a judge via Skype and a Twitter-style jury

The whole process with unveil itself in 120 minutes or less..

[ck4829]

15. I wonder when they'll start using 90 minute DNA tests to possibly exonerate innocent prison inmates

Hmmm...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. I don't have a problem taking DNA from a bona fide suspect with a court order.

I have a problem with ham handed hurried collection, processing AND contamination (falsifying?) evidence on the crime scene.

[factsarenotfair]

21. So, NOW can they test all of the rape kits waiting for testing? n/t

[closeupready]

23. Anyone attentive to the Snowden/NSA revelations

will find it hard to cheer this development on all that enthusiastically.

It's the angle which today's authoritarian US journalism establishment downplays, but which thinking people see immediately.

[Fumesucker]

24. What could possibly go wrong with that?

[Taitertots]

31. Expect warrantless DNA tests at random checkpoints

And expect the people you thought were reasonable to cheer for it because it helps fight the terrorists.