Mandatory DNA test for male healthcare workers

[jclalor 12]

Male workers who worked at the time of the vegetative patient’s impregnaten have been court ordered to provide DNA.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/us/arizona-woman-vegetative-state-gives-birth/index.html

[yoink 321]

Oooh.

It’s an awful crime but I don’t think anyone should be forced to provide a DNA sample unless there’s reasonable evidence that makes them a suspect. My gut feeling is that it’s probably unconstitutional.
They should be asked to, sure, but I’m struggling with the mandatory part.

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

[gowlerk 1,912]

yoink

Oooh.

It’s an awful crime but I don’t think anyone should be forced to provide a DNA sample unless there’s reasonable evidence that makes them a suspect. My gut feeling is that it’s probably unconstitutional.
They should be asked to, sure, but I’m struggling with the mandatory part.

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

I agree. Welcome to the brave now world. Guilty until proven innocent.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jclalor 12]

I can’t see how this could be legal, what would be the difference between a large facility and a small town? A rape in a small town wouldn’t require all male residents to be tested. I would think just asking for volunterry samples would get LE off to a good start.

[DJL 232]

gowlerk

***Oooh.

It’s an awful crime but I don’t think anyone should be forced to provide a DNA sample unless there’s reasonable evidence that makes them a suspect. My gut feeling is that it’s probably unconstitutional.
They should be asked to, sure, but I’m struggling with the mandatory part.

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

I agree. Welcome to the brave now world. Guilty until proven innocent.

Nope. Can't do it and this will probably end up in the courts because of that. They should just ask for every male who's been there to volunteer regardless of whether they work there and that includes family members of their patients. Let the investigators narrow it down and make them do their jobs.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[TriGirl 268]

Here's my question on this:

Why did it take the family until after the child was delivered to start to complain about the patient being pregnant? Why wasn't this investigation started immediately upon learning of her condition?

Something doesn't feel right here.

(I will say, she was absolutely violated -- I'm just not convinced it's as clear cut as these stories make it out to be)

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[ryoder 1,384]

I recall a few years ago, reading about a crime in a small village in England where there was DNA evidence. They called for volunteers to submit to DNA testing, and had enough cooperation, that law enforcement was able to quickly narrow down the suspects.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

>Why did it take the family until after the child was delivered to start to complain about
>the patient being pregnant? Why wasn't this investigation started immediately upon
>learning of her condition?

Per the story I read, no one knew she was pregnant until she went into labor. (It's not unusual for pregnancy to be missed in someone who is morbidly obese, although I don't know if that's the case here.)

[yoink 321]

DJL

******Oooh.

It’s an awful crime but I don’t think anyone should be forced to provide a DNA sample unless there’s reasonable evidence that makes them a suspect. My gut feeling is that it’s probably unconstitutional.
They should be asked to, sure, but I’m struggling with the mandatory part.

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

I agree. Welcome to the brave now world. Guilty until proven innocent.

Nope. Can't do it and this will probably end up in the courts because of that. They should just ask for every male who's been there to volunteer regardless of whether they work there and that includes family members of their patients. Let the investigators narrow it down and make them do their jobs.

When Stephen Hilder was murdered during a skydiving event everyone was told they weren't allowed to leave the DZ until the cops came, after which everyone was asked to provide a DNA sample before leaving.
I refused then, too.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

yoink

Oooh.

It’s an awful crime but I don’t think anyone should be forced to provide a DNA sample unless there’s reasonable evidence that makes them a suspect. My gut feeling is that it’s probably unconstitutional.
They should be asked to, sure, but I’m struggling with the mandatory part.

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

Depending on the type of facility, it would be very reasonable to suggest that those who work there are suspects.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Robert,

Quote

a crime in a small village in England

The Blooding by Jos. Wambaugh.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-688-08617-6

Good book & interesting in how they caught the bad guy.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) In this particular work environment I would not be surprised to find DNA submittal as part of an employment agreement.

[TriGirl 268]

billvon

>Why did it take the family until after the child was delivered to start to complain about
>the patient being pregnant? Why wasn't this investigation started immediately upon
>learning of her condition?

Per the story I read, no one knew she was pregnant until she went into labor. (It's not unusual for pregnancy to be missed in someone who is morbidly obese, although I don't know if that's the case here.)

I agree with that. However, she's been in a vegetative state for 10 years. And if she stopped menstruating, I would think someone would have tried to figure out why (since nothing else would have changed in her lifestyle).

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[billvon 2,400]

>Depending on the type of facility, it would be very reasonable to suggest that those
>who work there are suspects.

Well, given that she was also visited by family, they are not the only suspects. And I don't think you can say "anyone who had access to her in any way is a suspect." You'd have to narrow it down a _bit_ more than that to get a court order (I would hope.)

[pchapman 261]

yoink

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

Yeah. I'd volunteer DNA if some crime happened around where I've been, but I'd like certain guarantees. It doesn't go into the cops'/government's database forever. They can check this particular crime, then destroy the DNA sample and information.

Heck, maybe I'd let them check it against all other crimes, or as a bonus even give them a year into the future to catch up with testing. They get that as a freebie, to help show that I'm clean.

But it's pretty hard to make sure that the actual data is completely wiped from the record -- it would take a very specific privacy protocol to ensure that.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Peter,

Quote

the actual data is completely wiped from the record

IMO more of a pipe dream than reality.

I've had Ancestry.com check my DNA. I do not know what they may have done with it.

When I enlisted in the military they did a blood typing & took my fingerprints.

We can try to keep this personal stuff secret but only to an extent.

You can only count on death & taxes; hmmm, now who said that?



Jerry Baumchen

PS) Facial recognition anyone?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Well, given that she was also visited by family, they are not the only suspects.

Yeah, pretty sure I did't say anything about "only suspects".

Quote

And I don't think you can say "anyone who had access to her in any way is a suspect."

That statement is entirely true though, so why not? Though more likely any male who had access to her in any way is suspect. Without knowing numbers or the operation of the facility, that might be a pretty small group.

[billvon 2,400]

>That statement is entirely true though, so why not?

Because with that logic you could test everyone in New York City for a rape in Central Park. (And that certainly wouldn't fly with any reasonable judge.)

As I said, I think you need more than "they potentially had access."

[SkyDekker 1,122]

billvon

>That statement is entirely true though, so why not?

Because with that logic you could test everyone in New York City for a rape in Central Park. (And that certainly wouldn't fly with any reasonable judge.)

As I said, I think you need more than "they potentially had access."

Bullshit.

What if only 20 males are found to be most likely to have had access, with limited opportunity for other males.

Do you still think that is the same as all males in New York City? Because Argumentum ad Absurdum is a logical fallacy unlikely to fly with any reasonable judge.

[billvon 2,400]

>What if only 20 males are found to be most likely to have had access, with limited
>opportunity for other males.

Now you're getting closer. If you could narrow down that pool of 20 to a more limited set (i.e. people who were there exactly 9 months ago, people who have a history of assault, people who have the same eye color as the infant) then you'd likely get that court order.

But again, you have to have more than "they potentially had access."

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Bill,

Quote

Now you're getting closer.

In the book The Blooding ( noted above & a true story), it was a rape & killing of teenage girl. They narrowed it down to males, under 30, etc, etc. Then they started taking blood samples; they eventually did get the bad guy.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

What if only 20 males are found to be most likely to have had access, with limited opportunity for other males.

The right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure is an individual right. Only one man can be the father of the baby. 20 does not equal one. Requiring this invasion of privacy based solely on the possibility that someone had opportunity is not reasonable. And not likely enforceable.

The US courts have ruled that DNA swabs can be required of those how are under arrest. Even that decision was 5-4.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

***Oooh.

It’s an awful crime but I don’t think anyone should be forced to provide a DNA sample unless there’s reasonable evidence that makes them a suspect. My gut feeling is that it’s probably unconstitutional.
They should be asked to, sure, but I’m struggling with the mandatory part.

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

I agree. Welcome to the brave now world. Guilty until proven innocent.

Wow! What a juxtaposition. you guys don't say this one when it's some Republicans who has gotten in trouble with no evidence!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

rushmc

******Oooh.

It’s an awful crime but I don’t think anyone should be forced to provide a DNA sample unless there’s reasonable evidence that makes them a suspect. My gut feeling is that it’s probably unconstitutional.
They should be asked to, sure, but I’m struggling with the mandatory part.

My DNA is one of the few things I’m really really protective and paranoid over.

I agree. Welcome to the brave now world. Guilty until proven innocent.

Wow! What a juxtaposition. you guys don't say this one when it's some Republicans who has gotten in trouble with no evidence!

hYour boyfriend is the subject of an investigation but has not has his constitutional rights violated. If his lawyers thought
for a second they had been it would have been a talking point way before now. That's the way law works. Try reading up on it.

This however, is DEFINITELY a bunch of innocent people being forced top provide the only thing in the world that identifies them as them against their will. It's a completely different scenario... but you don't care about that, because you're a troll, and everything comes down to sucking off Donald Trump and scoring meaning less internet points.

Do us all a favor and keep your political comments to the appropriate threads or fuck off.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

billvon

>What if only 20 males are found to be most likely to have had access, with limited
>opportunity for other males.

Now you're getting closer. If you could narrow down that pool of 20 to a more limited set (i.e. people who were there exactly 9 months ago, people who have a history of assault, people who have the same eye color as the infant) then you'd likely get that court order.

But again, you have to have more than "they potentially had access."

Considering a judge signed the warrants, you are clearly wrong. I will be happy to revisit when more information becomes available.

[billvon 2,400]

>Considering a judge signed the warrants, you are clearly wrong.

From the story in the NYT: "It was not clear how many male employees or others the police would obtain DNA from to be tested."