Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 23, 2007, to require DNA samples to be taken by police from any person arrested for a violent felony

The vote was 104 in favor, 4 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 63 at House Journal 15)

Click here to view bill details.

This is scary stuff. If you are ARRESTED for a violent felony, not convicted of anything, why should the state have a right to collect your DNA? To create a permanent record to check against crimes committed. Why stop there, Aldo? If you want to create a more complete record, obtain samples from, say, all MEN. Aren't MEN responsible for the vast majority of the crimes listed in your bill? Certainly, this can be justified in the name of soving crime, deterring crime.

they have a right to collect your fingerprints. it's called "PROBABLE CAUSE". if you are arrested for a violent crime, you have PROBABLY committed more violence. they collect your fingerprints first so they can identify you uniquely, then they take that unique identification, and compare it to past unsolved crimes. if your unique identifier (fingerprints, or in this case, d.n.a.) shows up at any of those crime scenes, the crime is YOURS. it's supposed to work because criminals don't want to be 'pinned' with multiple crimes. some criminals are too dumb to realize this, and they commit crimes anyway.

otherwise, I'm against it.

"if you are arrested for a violent crime, you have PROBABLY committed more violence." Yikes... Thankfully the law protects us from people who think like this. Well, it does for now, anyway.

often the facts contradict this last statement. it IS amazing how many times law enforcement finds that a person arrested for a particular crime has committed SEVERAL other crimes. i consider d.n.a. sampling after arrest to be very similar to taking of fingerprints. your right to avoindance of self incrimination doesn't extend to the avoidance of proper identification. the d.n.a. sampling would help identify (and occasionally exonorate) criminals.

protect you from people who think like this. in case you just woke up from your two hundred year coma, it works like this. the police first build a case, based on facts, till they build up enough 'probable cause' to arrest you. then they look back at all SIMILAR cases to see if you might have had anything to do with them. if they can prove that you have, they 'tack them on'to your bill of particulars. they also question you about any similar cases, hoping that you will 'slip up' and admit to another crime. you can't rely on them to not ask you about other crimes, and you can't rely on them to ignore any other crimes you admit to. your right against SELF INCRIMINATION doesn't extend to THEM incriminating you. if you believe it works any other way, you've been watching WAY too much perry mason.

Rep. Miller, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: While admittedly DNA evidence can be an important tool for law enforcement, I remain unconvinced that the evidence will not be retained after an individual is exonerated or that it will not be passed along to be included in broader DNA collection efforts at the national level before records are cleared at the state level. Additionally, the bill as written provides for collection of DNA material upon accusation and I feel that, until convicted, an individual should retain the right to make decisions about sampling of his or her DNA material. Perhaps the ‘genie has already been let out of the bottle’ with regard to the warehousing and cataloguing of DNA material, but I cannot in good conscience support this proposal at this time. BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.”