Criminal defense lawyers in the area of Francisco
A person is arrested he is presumed innocent.
It should be illegal to take a DNA sample from those arrested on crime.? The fact that law enforcement uses DNA data
Stop people is no reason to ignore the fourth amendment
The Constitution.
Accused persons crimes.
As reported by the Chronicle of San Francisco, California law approved by voters
Requiring the police to collect DNA samples from anyone arrested for suspicion of a crime
Violates the privacy rights of people who do not constitutional is intended
With or convicted of a crime, a State appeals court ruled Thursday.
The law has extended the previous statutes authorized law enforcement
To take a DNA ??????? and suspects with criminal records. Approved by 62
Percentage of voters in 2004 and 2009, this requires each
Arrested on suspicion of a crime to the inner cheek swabbed for genetic
Material, then move a database accessible to and
The local police, the FBI.
The Federal Government and about half have laws allowing DNA
A collection of or all of the arrestees. Supporters say the measures
Minimally intrusive and police strength in ????? "Kerr
Cases. "
Responding to a federal court challenge of the law in California last year,
Then-Attorney General Jerry Brown
As evidence of DNA fingerprint "of the 21st century",
Declared, "this is no more a violation of privacy than you when you
Give your fingerprints. "
Go get fingerprints
But the first District Court in San Francisco said that contains DNA
"Extraordinary amount of personal information"
There are fingerprints. Unlike fingerprints, which are used mainly to
Identify the suspects, DNA evidence collected in the hope of linking arrestees to
Other crimes, or crimes might execute in the future, said the Court.
These searches are conducted "without suspicion of personal
These crimes culpability, often before a judge decided whether the police was
In the first place of detention, the Court said.
The courts have upheld testing of prisoners, parolees, but someone who
Only stopped there privacy rights "near normal
Citizen, "the Family Justice Anthony j. KLEIN said ruling 3-0.
Responsible for Brown, Klein said research has questioned the value of
Collecting DNA arrestees, but even if this helped police solve cases,
"The effectiveness of the technology crime is processing it
Unconstitutional. "
Klein State records sources showing that adults 407,000 arrested
Crimes in California in 2009, only 51 percent were convicted. Under the law,
DNA samples from the 49 percent of the others remain in the database for years
Unless the arrestee is in court or the Prosecutor agreed to remove
For example.
It was the first person in the Court's ruling in California to have a problem
Courts elsewhere. A federal judge in San Francisco upheld the law in 2009, but
Circuit u.s. Court of appeals for the 9th to put the case on hold while a separate
A 13-judge reviews a challenge federal law requires DNA testing
Suspected of seeking bail on federal criminal charges.
Conviction overturned
Decision of the misdemeanor conviction overturned Thursday, six months
Statement of mark Buza, who refused to give a DNA sample after he was arrested
In January 2009 for setting fire to the San Francisco police vehicle.
It won't do much Buza, who was also convicted of bacta and served
16-months ' imprisonment. But his lawyer, j. O'Connell Bradley first
From participants of the project, said District Court drew a crucial distinction between
The arrest and conviction.
"Before you were the only legitimate intrusions on, your
Freedom and privacy are those related directly to htanalotn
Needs of this particular case, "said O'Connell. Searches DNA
Unrelated to my arrest, are conducted "in the hope of getting lucky and
Tying certain crime arrestee entirely different, "he said.
State Attorney Kamala
Harris can appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court. Her Office said
It was reviewing the case, refused comment. But the leader
Organization that filed arguments in support of the law of the State's breast
The Court made the ruling Thursday.
"We know of the young women who have murder it will still be
Such a law was in effect ??"?? in their conditions, said Jayann
Sepich, whose daughter Katie Sepich, 22 years old, was raped a woman in New Mexico
Murdered in 2003.
Assisted case
Gabriel ávila, was arrested on charge breaking into 2004 and later
Without DNA testing, he pleaded guilty to the murder after he was rearrested
2007.
Jayann Sepich said tests mandatory DNA did not save her
But to solve the case earlier, continued ávila in jail. New Mexico
Law collection of DNA called Katie's law, and a group of Sepich, DNA saves,
He promoted similar laws throughout the country.
Certified specialist in criminal law
Attorneys Robert j. Beles
Always offer a free consultation to help you evaluate your case.? Please
Call (510) 841-0100.
Oakland Office
Ordway building
1 Kaiser Plaza-2300 suite
Oakland, CA 94612-.
Phone: (510) 0100 836
Fax: 510-832-3690
Office Hayward
22320-????? Blvd. Suite 460
Hayward, CA 94541-.
Phone: (510) 1030 889
Fremont Office
Stevenson place, Suite 217 39560
Fremont, CA 94536-.
Phone: (510) 7755 745
Pleasanton Office
4900 Hopyard RD 100 Suite.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: (925) 5400 460
Concord Office
1849 Willow pass-301 suite
Concord, CA 94520-.
Phone: (925) 5400 460
No comments:
Post a Comment