Proposal for DNA law violates Texans’ rights
Galveston Daily News
When the state legislators are in session, as they are now, Texans are used to hearing about some harebrained scheme or other they dream up that usually doesn’t work and often treads upon people’s rights.
This year, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, and the police chiefs from Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Houston and El Paso have outdone themselves.
They want a law requiring a DNA test of everyone arrested for minor misdemeanors (class B and above) and felonies, regardless of whether the individual is convicted or not.
So, if someone is arrested for trespassing, reckless driving, graffiti or fighting, for example, the police would collect their DNA and store it in local, state and national data banks.
Given that nearly a million Texas adults and juveniles are arrested every year, the DNA proposal would cost taxpayers at least $32 million annually.
Patrick and the chiefs argue that testing would benefit crime solving and help wrongly convicted people — as the case of Timothy Cole recently proved. Cole was wrongly convicted of a 1985 rape in Lubbock and died in prison in 1999, before DNA tests proved his innocence.
It’s hard to find an argument more twisted and bizarre than this: Because the Lubbock police were incompetent and maliciously prosecuted an innocent person, all Texans should give up their rights to the police for DNA testing.
What business does the government have collecting our DNA — locally and nationally — just on the off-chance that sometime, somewhere in the country, the DNA may identify someone previously convicted or who doesn’t show up for court? What are the odds of that?
Why do they think this should trump our personal privacy and bodily integrity?
Given all the uniquely personal medical history wrapped up in DNA, what’s to prevent that information from leaking out, accidentally or intentionally — as we saw recently when veterans’ private medical records were posted on the Web?
Clearly, there are times when DNA collection is necessary, such as in rape or murder cases. But there already are procedures for that, based upon proper cause.
Patrick and the chiefs tell us they’ll make sure that, if the person is cleared after arrest, the DNA sample and all data-base records will be destroyed. That’s really hard to believe; impossible, actually. That presumes a level of police competence we have yet to witness.
However, if you pay the fine for your misdemeanor charge, rather than go to trial, the government will keep your DNA records for the rest of your life.
Police seem to have the idea that, simply because the technology is available, they should use it, regardless of whether it violates our constitutional protections against unreasonable government intrusion.
Imagine what the founders of this country and the drafters of the Bill of Rights would have thought of that argument.
Certainly, our society would have less crime if the police could search our houses without a warrant or make arrests without probable cause, but that is not what a democracy is about. Democracy is a delicate balance between the rights of individuals and the power of the government.
Sen. Patrick and the police chiefs have overstepped the bounds. We need to let them know they have gone too far, and that they need to reacquaint themselves with the Bill of Rights.
James Harrington is director of Texas Civil Rights Project.
Whoever wrote this story is clearly a very biased, closed minded individual. First of all, no where in the article is there proper back up to the accusations that DNA testing for an individual who is arrested is against the constitution. I do not hear complaints about finger printing and information giving after every arrest, so why not DNA? I understand that taking DNA is more personal than taking fingerprints, however, it has yet to been proven and properly backed up that it is, in fact, against the constitution. In all articles I’ve read on this case, no where is there evidence that DNA gathering is unconstitutional. The author of this article is clearly passionate about his feelings towards the subject, so I see no reason as to why he does not give proper evidence to firm up his story, unless of course there is none.
Further, the way he cites all law enforcement as incompetent and untrustworthy in such a distasteful way is rude, inconsiderate, and false. For an author to be respected and heard, he must take into account both sides of the story and portray his opinion in a manner that should not offend most individuals. If an article such as this is written, chances are it is going to offend a good chunk of the population and thus, not be considered a good source of information.
As far as funding is concerned, it is true that collecting DNA would cause a raise in taxes and the like. However, doesn’t everything governments propose to do cost money? Yes, it is a main concern and issue, but as with everything else, new proposals need funding. That should not be the deciding factor when considering this issue, the deciding factor should be whether or not doing such a thing would benefit the public at large. In this case, allowing for the protection of innocent individuals seems to be more important than “respecting the constitutional rights” of criminals (of any kind). Unless hard evidence can be dug up, I see no constitutional infringements on the DNA collection of an arrested person, and thus, no major concerns with the proposal at hand.