©
By Josh Gerstein
President Barack Obama’s embrace of a national database to store the DNA of people arrested but not necessarily convicted of a crime is heartening to backers of the policy but disappointing to criminal-justice reformers, who view it as an invasion of privacy.
Others also worry the practice would adversely affect minorities.
In an interview aired Saturday on “America’s Most Wanted,” Obama expressed strong agreement as host John Walsh extolled the virtues of collecting DNA at the time of an arrest and putting it into a single, national database.
“We have 18 states who are taking DNA upon arrest,” Walsh said. “It’s no different than fingerprinting or a booking photo. ... Since those states have been doing it, it has cleared 200 people that are innocent from jail.”
“It’s the right thing to do,” Obama replied. “This is where the national registry becomes so important, because what you have is individual states — they may have a database, but if they’re not sharing it with the state next door, you’ve got a guy from Illinois driving over into Indiana, and they’re not talking to each other.”
Erin Runnion, whose 5-year-old daughter Samantha was murdered in 2002, was delighted at Obama’s remarks. “I am thrilled that the president seems to be supportive of DNA upon felony arrest. I think we’ll prevent future crimes across this country by doing it,” she said. “I’m absolutely 100 percent in favor of it.”
Some opponents of the idea, though, were taken aback.
“I’m actually surprised he would give an answer like that,” said Deborah Peterson Small of Break the Chains, which studies the impact of drug laws on minority groups. “I’d think he and people around him would know that collecting DNA samples from arrestees is more controversial than collecting it from people who’ve been convicted.”
“It’s a horrible idea — tremendously invasive,” said Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who also disputed Walsh’s claim that DNA is no different from fingerprints.
“It’s like a hair sample, looking at your health care records and everything else,” Quigley said. “It’s like giving a blank check to the government — a blank check they can cash anytime they feel like it.”
In a provocative report two years ago, titled “Building Jim Crow’s Database,” Small and other critics charged that DNA-upon-arrest provisions disproportionately affect minorities because they are more likely to be arrested, even if not convicted.
“It’s racially incredibly skewed,” she said.
A White House spokesman declined to explain or elaborate on Obama’s remarks.
In 2004, Californians overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure requiring DNA testing, usually by a swab inside the cheek, for all felony arrests and some others. And in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has sought to go even further, proposing DNA tests for everyone arrested in the city, even for misdemeanors.
Just days before Obama took office, the Bush administration implemented a 2006 law to take DNA from federal arrestees, including immigration detainees. Court challenges to DNA-upon-arrest programs are under way, encountering mixed results.
The federal system and many states allow arrestees to seek to remove their DNA from the database when they are acquitted or never charged. But officials say such requests are rarely made.
Criminologist James Fox of Northeastern University in Boston said he was surprised by Obama’s comment on DNA-upon-arrest and by his decision even to do an interview with the crime-focused TV show.
“There’s always been controversy about ‘America’s Most Wanted,’ not just among civil libertarians but [also among] criminologists, about telling the public to be on the lookout for a guy who looks like this fellow,” Fox said.
Walsh stressed in the exchange with Obama that his show is “not about Americans being vigilantes or anything like that.”
Fox also said he wouldn’t recommend DNA-upon-arrest to Obama as a priority. “I’d much rather see him deal with ballistic fingerprinting and repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment,” which limits gun tracing by police, Fox said.
Small said Obama’s comments in the interview underscored her concern that the administration hasn’t done much to root out unfairness in the criminal-justice system.
“I supported Obama. I still support Obama,” she said. “I’m very disappointed. He’s done next to nothing in the area of criminal-justice reform.”

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Collecting DNA isnt new
20 yrs ago when my daughter was born they took 3 blood samples for no special reason and said they needed to keep samples of her blood on file.
When my son was born 5 yrs ago they did the same thing.
So it looks to me like all children already have their dna recorded somewhere.
I think this is just grabbing those who are likely to need it since they are already being arrested.
I think they should take DNA of EVERYBODY who is in the country if they take anybody's. Otherwise what's the point?
It's the fastest way to clear you of a crime accusation.
The problem is uneven application of existing laws.
You can get more time from having a gram of crack in your pocket than from raping/torturing and or killing a woman.
I think the legal penalties need to be reevaluated all at the same time on a national level.
Each state has their own separate laws which is crazy given that there's no central place that they are posted.
I think everybody should have dna collected and a national group of laws that applies to everybody equally including politicians -
(they are currently exempt which is why they have no problem leaving things in a crazy mess legally).
Dupont94, us "super paranoid
Dupont94,
us "super paranoid people" live in the real world, not the dreamland you fantasize about. We recall those who came and got the Jews in Europe, those who came and got the Christians in the Soviet Union, ........, fill in the blanks. But you are probably right. No need to be concerned with the laws enacted today. Nothing bad will ever, ever happen again.
Just Plain Wrong
This idea isn't new, and it isn't any more acceptable now.
I loved reading the posts that basically say if you don't do anything to get arrested you don't have anything to worry about. That's a naive statement expecting the government will not expand the scope and purpose once in place.
It's questionable constitutionally, and only of value to a budding police state.
If that's what you want live in fine, but don't be surprised when you receive a notice to report to a lab for general registration of your DNA.
I sure hope the FBI and CIA are monitoring the remarks
I sure hope the FBI and CIA are monitoriing the remarks made several people on this platform especially since what happened with that Pentagon shooter last week. I'm just saying...
dupont94
First you say to take a deep breath, no one is coming to get us, then you say you hope the FBI and CIA are MONITORING (invading thte privacy of) our comments? Hmmmmm, is your paycheck signed by someone in the White House? Hmmmmm
Stunning!
How positively Orwellian of you!
And to suggest that those of us who disagree with this policy should be watched or are like the Pentagon gunman? Stunning!
Yep, gotta worship The Almighty State no matter what or be put away for thought crimes!
Generally ignored
T, I don't pay those type of comments much attention. There will always be those on these forums who admire a big brother state. They are in fact statists. They believe government reflects the will of the people and should be used to perfect society. The erosion of liberty ,freedom, and individual rights in the course of doing so does not dissuade them. When's the last time we heard our current leaders use any of these words. WE haven't ; its incompatible with their views. Instead its always about group rights, classes, and the public domain. The resulting conclusion of statism is eventually tyranny. We can and will still challenge any edicts coming from the government in the courts.
Just Plain tired of more government programs
Despite this law and order initiative, Obama's legislative agenda is just so aggressive, no one can do any planning, because you don't know what the impact of taxes and legislation is going to be. We'll see no change in the unemployment this year, and 9% unemployment will be the new norm. Up next is immigration reform, then bank reform, then energy reform. Everyday its Obama on TV and news -every dadgum day! Come November, we'll change the makeup of the Congress to muzzle anymore of his big government ideas, defund some of the programs. Don't have to repeal them, just defund them. No government should be this invasive in the lives of its citizens. I predict if it continues, we'll will see a revolution of some type.
Obama and Hitler have many things in Common
Hitler used a Tattoo to mark his Jews.
Obama wants to use DNA to mark his.
You can refuse to take a blood test or breath test.
So why can't you refuse the DNA test.
This is an invasion of privacy. Getting arrested does not make you guilty. guilty until proven innocent.
Finger prints like pictures doesn't take anything from you. DNA sample does. You should have a right to refuse. Just like a search warrant the police should have to obtain a warrant issued by a JUDGE in which they would have to have proof of probable cause.
Obama wants to make use buy health insurance.
Obama wants to make you give DNA.
Obama wants your money.
Whats next? blood data base, body parts data base,wake up people this guy can cause a lot of damge in the next 3 years!!!
Vote them out in 2010 and 2012... SAVE FREEDOM........
Breath test
If you are pulled over for suspected DUI and you refuse the breath test, you will be placed under arrest and given a breath test in the jail.