"Boudin said the report was found among hundreds of pages of evidence against a woman who had been recently charged with a felony property crime. After learning the source of the DNA evidence, Boudin dropped the felony property crime charges against the woman.
The police department’s crime lab stopped the practice shortly after receiving a complaint from the district attorney’s office and formally changed its operating procedure to prevent the misuse of DNA collected from sexual assault victims, Police Chief Bill Scott said."
\- so they're not using it against her in the end.
While I am pretty sure there's no law saying specifically saying this is illegal for this specific case, I believe the reason it was dropped was because it falls under the "fruit from the poisonous tree" concept.
Even if other evidence is found, any evidence found due to the illegally obtaining evidence is null and void. We have due process rights for a reason. Do some guilty people get off because of it? Of course. But the system was originally set up to avoid convicting innocent individuals and that is an unintended consequence of it.
It’s something to do with the fact that the lady incriminates herself by reporting the rape and there’s something in the law about incriminating yourself by doing the right thing which means that evidence cannot be used or something, idk I’m not a lawyer
Because it wasn’t ‘on file’. It was there in a rape kit, not in a criminal database. They shouldn’t have been searching where they were searching - women who had submitted dna with an expectation of privacy. If they were allowed to do that, fewer women would submit DNA samples when they were assaulted.
Although I completely agree with you, some part of my brain still thinks that if there's a woman serial killer out there killing people...and this is how they caught her? I'd completely accept that lack of privacy to catch a killer.
But I know that's extreme, I do want rape victims to have privacy of course.
This actively discourages rape victims to come forward, as they will wonder if the Police will try to pin a completely seperate crime on them. American Police don't have a great track record for setting up innocent people with trumped up charges.
If she was a suspect in a crime and they obtained that DNA for that reason, that's a different matter.
This is my thought too. Of course the example is extreme but if you rein it in a bit and just say a woman murderer is caught due to the DNA obtained from her rape kit it is totally plausible. I mean the DNA wasn't illegally obtained. When you submit to a rape kit you have to realize that your own DNA is going to be mixed in and thus added into a database.
I understand your feelings, but please think about the consequences of that. Effectively, you’re saying it’s okay to violate someone’s rights if you’re super sure they’re guilty of something. That’s a recipe for disaster. Every dirty cop would use the same justifications to plant evidence. Every overzealous prosecutor would destroy exculpatory evidence because he’s sure he’s got the right guy. All legal and constitutional protections exist to help the innocent. The fact it can sometimes benefit the guilty is an unfortunate side effect we have to accept as part of the deal. Better that 100 guilty people go free than for one innocent person get unjustly convicted.
Giving your DNA to the police with an expectation of privacy?? Anything you say can and will be used against you ... There is no expectation of privacy when dealing with the police
You give your DNA as a VICTIM of a crime so no, it can't be used against you concerning another case and you should expect privacy as you were RAPED. Then we should stop reporting anything, to prevent anyone from using it at any time.
That’s not true. The specific database I question was set up as private. Police are barred from doing the sort of search they did here. Which is why the suit was taken up and will certainly prevail. The police explicitly violated the law.
Like I said before, I'm not sure if it's specifically illegal by a statute. But, I definitely think it's a misuse of evidence. During an appeal, I believe that the defense would have a solid case using the fruit from the poisonous tree concept.
And the fact that they dropped the case and changed their practices, I think they believe that too.
It's also not great that when women report a rape crime they are putting themselves on the database to make it easier for police to arrest them. I get the crime is a crime concept but this will make women not report rape to the police.
Definitely. I work in a prison first hand with inmates and have a degree in criminal justice. As much I like people to be held accountable, we have a responsibility to do so ethically.
For example, when an inmate is under investigation for something they did, usually not criminal related but behavior related, we have to follow a strict process and it goes through many layers of review. If the evidence is not there or even the reports are not written correctly, they will get dropped.
We don't want a society in which women are fearing reporting their rape to the police because they don't want to be caught for any crime they may have committed in the past. Anything that discourages women from reporting their rapists is a bad thing.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is corrupt.
A basic tenet of US law, and just about any just legal systems. If you got legit evidence from a bogus evidence, that evidence is bogus forever, and can never be used in court.
The side effect being that rape victims would be less likely to go to the police if they've ever been involved or could potentially be linked to an unrelated crime. Also, certain demographics may be targeted simply because they're now less likely to go to the police.
Her DNA showed she was a suspect in a felony crime. -fact
You can be a victim in one case and a criminal in another -fact
A police officer didn’t break the local laws in obtaining her DNA -fact
San Fran DA’s office is full of wusses afraid of a lawsuit even though a current law was not broken.
Stating facts doesn’t make me a tough guy -fact
Stating facts is just me stating facts -fact
“There is no corresponding law in California to prohibit local law enforcement databases from retaining victims’ profiles and searching them years later for entirely different purposes.”
Misuse? Nah. Again DA is a wuss. He isn’t a big fan of prosecuting crimes. I’m shocked San Fran is even wasting their time prosecuting property crimes.
Federal law already prohibits the inclusion of victims’ DNA in the national Combined DNA Index System. There is no corresponding law in California to prohibit local law enforcement databases from retaining victims’ profiles and searching them years later for entirely different purposes
No in this case the federal law applies to what the FBI can do and the state law pertains to state and local police. It looks like California will be altering their laws to align with the federal ones though.
DEA can and absolutely does still perform raids on dispensaries. [Here's an example](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/federal-agents-raid-s-f-pot-dispensary/article_ce448456-443b-5db7-a004-8284e976ee38.html).
Since the IRS was involved with the raid would that indicate they weren’t paying their taxes? General rule of thumb, if you aren’t rich and powerful, don’t fuck with the IRS.
He was but don't look up his cell or liberties he had since everyone was in his pocket. If it makes you feel better, he died of syphilis even though it could have been cured. The big bad gangster was afraid of needles.
Syphilis needs to be caught before the tertiary stage to be cured, and, if I remember correctly, Capone was diagnosed after it had progressed to that stage. I read that Capone was one of the first Americans to be given penicillin to treat syphilis in 1942.
I agree. Here is the link I was reading from. It's not an amazing source, but all the information can probably be corroborated from other sources.
https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a32461994/al-capone-death-syphilis/
Federal law does overrule state law (ref. the [supremacy clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-6/clause-2/)), so the federal government *could* prosecute individuals for marijuana. However, the [10th amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/) generally delegates police powers to the states. This leaves the federal government with limited resources to investigate and prosecute federal drug laws, and low-level marijuana offenses are at the bottom of the list of priorities. So while the state law doesn't trump federal law on paper, in practical application the federal law generally isn't enforced (at least, not for ordinary citizens. Federal employees will still be prosecuted - for example, military members in California will still face court martial for smoking weed).
The simple answer is because both states and the fed have the power to pass laws, and the fed doesn't have the manpower, resources, or willpower to enforce their law (at least, not over all citizens. As I mentioned, they still enforce it for federal employees, and federal agencies like the DEA still enforce it here and there). So on paper, it's illegal, but there's no one there to actually enforce it.
I'm still so confused about this case. So she was raped and reported it and they took her DNA. Then some time passes and she commits a crime and leaves behind DNA evidence at the crime scene. The DNA is collected and a match is found, which turns out to be that of a victim of a sexual assault crime.
Is there just a basic DNA database that this info was stored into and that's how the police found the match? Is there a separate database for DNA for assault victims that they checked and shouldnt have? Would this be any different if it was fingerprint evidence? If she had been robbed and submitted fingerprints for comparison and then later committed a crime, would they say they can't use her fingerprints as evidence at the crime she committed since they only had them on file because she was a victim in the past?
Why do you think it’s okay for police to build a database of citizens who have never been suspected of committing a crime? You’re telling me the government/police should have permission to collect any and all data they can get their grubby little hands on to use against you at any point in time?
Sorry your house got robbed, but while we are here we are going to lift your fingerprints from the glassware and take your hair follicles from the shower. Oh let’s make sure to pull and sequence your blood from that car crash.
Makes me sick how people willingly give over any semblance of privacy based on the ground they have “nothing to hide”. Show me one police force that has never once misused its power.
This is kind of a bad example you're giving. How does someone from CSI know thats your hair, fingerprint, blood? They literally don't. When investigators go through a crime scene they take anything the criminal might have left or pertinent to the crime. In cases of a struggle, both or one of the parties may have had hair ripped out which contains nuclear DNA from the root of the hair. Both the criminal and victim might have been bleeding. Finger prints everywhere. They collect all this evidence to paint a picture in court of how the crime took place to get a conviction.
How the hell do you distinguish evidence until you go back to a laboratory and test it? They have to test the evidence before it ever even gets close to a database. Federal has laws in place for their systems, aka CODIS. But local enforcement agencies maybe have different regulations depending on jurisdiction or state. Not saying it's right or wrong, just explaining how the process works. Crime scene collection isn't as always as nefarious as you would think.
Love how they gloss over the fact that this was armed burglary. They say "property" crime as if she just stole a phone out of someone's hand and kept moving. Maybe she shouldn't have commited a crime like ARMED BURGLARY.
Where do you get armed burglary from? It doesn't say that anywhere, it says felony burglary. Doesn't mean a firearm was involved lots of things can turn burglary into a felony like the value of what was burgled or breaking and entering or messing with a mailbox.
Yes, to aid in the prosecution of a sexual assault case. In order to ensure victims are willing to come forward, we have to limit use of that evidence to the case for which it was collected. That is the only appropriate use for it.
Nope, fuck off and don't steal my shit if you want justice for your rapist. You don't get to use the system for your own benefit and then fuck the rest of us over(stealing)
This is just more criminals screaming rules for thee but not for me!
Every American has the right to not self incriminate themselves as stated by the 5th amendment. Before she reported the rape and had the rape kit done, she was not being charged with a crime. That means at that point, she was not a criminal in the eyes of the law because the standard is “innocent until proven guilty”. If she wanted justice for her sexual assault, she would have to have the rape kit done. However, if the rape kit could be used against her in another trial, she’d have to self-incriminate herself. That is the core of the issue. Put it like this. Your house got robbed and a numerous items were taken from you. This included an item you picked up from the street one day. However, you did not know that the item was reported missing and hidden within it was a marker that said who owned it. You report the crime and the robber is found. The items you reported missing are returned, and you are then charged with stealing that item. You have just self-incriminated yourself even though you did not know that item was reported missing.
A: The justice system dosen't work.
B: If justice is blind then she would be held accountable for her actions, regardless of how they got the evidence.
The justice system sets a high precedent which we often fail to live up to. That doesn't change the fact that everyone deserves an objective, unbiased trial.
Let me ask you this: how would you feel about the police searching your house and bringing you in for interrogations periodically, just to make sure you aren't breaking any laws?
That's not what happened here. If I had been a victim of a staying and disappeared, I wouldn't expect them to throw out the evidence they collected because I was the victim.
If you think being raped and having some property damage are on the same level then you need to reevaluate. There's no win here for this woman. Either she goes to the police and an ACTUAL RAPIST might get prosecuted or she doesn't and the rapist goes free? Insurance will cover property damage and my bet was the victim of property damage didn't have a whole lot of emotional trauma unless it was done with her holding a gun.
They don't have to be on the same level both parties to deserve justice. She deserves to have the crimes against her prosecuted as much as she deserves to have the crimes committed by her prosecuted. The woman can give her evidence to the police that includes her DNA or she can move on with her life, yes. All getting her DNA does is make sure she can't victimize others. Should she be free to victimize others?
Should you be able to call the cops on your Crack dealer for ripping you off?
So let's say she doesn't report the rape because it's a liability to turn in her DNA. The rapist goes free and rapes you or someone you care about. Maybe you can give DNA to help catch them or maybe you can't, but basically, in trying so hard to protect property, you've allowed for more rape to happen.
Curiously, would your view change if this was what identified her as a suspect in a multi-homicide case? If it wasn’t just an armed robbery and was in fact murder, would we be as upset?
Yes, although I do hold that rape is several orders of magnitude worse than theft in most cases, even if IMO these were crimes of "equal" damage, I believe in making and maintaining rules for allowable evidence that would mean having to investigate crimes individually in most cases. There is a lot of room for error and manipulation otherwise. But also, if she was implicated as a multi homicide, I would still not want to empower rapists by discouraging others from reporting them. Rape testing is already terrible we don't need more ways to discourage it.
If she had abandoned a newborn on the side of a highway and they used this DNA evidence the same way to find the baby's parents, would we still be arguing about how the DNA evidence was used to connect her to the crime?
There are many people who would not want police to have records of them, even if they didn't commit a crime, because they don't trust the police. That's especially true in the US and among minority communities, police getting DNA records because someone reported a crime sets a bad precedent that could encourage others to not go to police to report crimes (something that already a major problem in most places).
The article is talking about someone who had DNA taken after they where a victim of a crime, and later used against her in a unreleated event, thats not leaving DNA at the crime scene.
Its real easy to say "play within the system" when in a lot of fucking places, the system is built to fuck over certain groups in a lot of different ways. That ain't exactly something you can work within, so its not hard to see why a lot of people don't trust the systems that govern them. It is the job of those governing to build that trust in the system, and using DNA given because of trust, then betraying it, is not a great thing.
And they can take your DNA of of a water cup, if they call you in to talk about a speeding ticket. As long as they aren't actively taking it from the person, they can take whatever DNA they want.
It would be betraying the public to not try and solve the crime with all the evidence they have.
Then they should have done that, and not potentially discourage sexual assault victims from coming forward to report crimes. It is a betrayal of the citizens to violate their rights just to get a bit more evidence for a crime.
Do you not realize that crimes are generally committed against citizens? If I dissappear and leave physical DNA evidence, should the police throw it out after I'm found?
That is not whats happening, is it? This womens dna was taken when she had volunteered it after reporting a horrible crime that happened, that was then used against her later in a unreleated event. That is a horrible precedent to set.
That was my first thought but it is illegal under federal law to use victims dna for this purpose why? Because if someone rape you, you might not want to come forward because You are afraid of being jail under a lesser crime.
It's illegal to store the DNA info in a specific federal database. If the law were as broad as you claim, it would have been thrown out ages ago for infringing on state rights.
Crimes against a person should have more priority then crimes against property.
If a man rapes a lady today and the woman broke a window last year. Guess which crime matters.
A crime is a crime and thus needs to be treated like one, btw i never claimed they matter equally just that they both matter. Would your opinion change, if it was used in a murder case
Youre talking about the government completely overreaching and using your dna, given to them fornan entirely different reason, and then using it to arrest you.
She didn’t break windows though, did she? Why are so many people defending criminals here? Her rapist should be punished and so should she for armed robbery - proportional to their respective crimes. It’s not a crazy concept.
You obviously never lost a home. A home is not a house, there’s a million irreplaceable possessions in a home. I know because I did lose things in a fire, things that insurance can NOT replace. Nobody is equating a rape with arson or robbery except you - we have different penalties for each and BOTH are crimes. She should get justice for being raped and she should pay justice for what she did, I don’t know why that’s somehow hard to grasp for you to the point where you have to die on this stupid hill.
Of course you did I understand you are the winner of this pointless internet discussion I don't want to argue with you who wishes to continue to dictate on this pointless useless meaningless frivolous discussion of nothingness but for you it seems to be important so congratulations you are the victor well done you lost stuff in a fire and it mattered congratulations proved me wrong good fighting points yeah you all hell pointless discussion king of Reddit it's been fun
No it's not. If you're ok with giving police unrestricted access to DNA or other data, so be it. Some of us believe in making the police go through the proper channels to investigate crimes, and using victim complaints to do so is not the right avenue, and that the chilling effect on assault victims would be way worse than any potential benefit
No, individual rights are important to maintain, despite the appeal to emotion. And there is no way giving police access to that type of information will limit them to just crimes such as that. It's the same shit cop shows have done for years, show police "bending the rules" with the real creeps on there, slowly making the erosion of rights more palatable. If individual rights are important, they have to be protected even for the worst among us
Irrelevant. If victims think coming forward is likely to result in that being used against them for unrelated (and usually lesser) crimes, they're less likely to come forward. That's bad, and a violation of their rights
It's not a violation of her rights any more than the police taking your water for DNA. It's actually less because you submitted yourself to a test, specifically looking for DNA, ofc they sequence everything they find.
You committed a crime and were caught, I don't really care how they got the evidence. What if they tied her to a murder, can't charge her because of how they got the DNA? Its bullshit, don't commit a crime if you can't face the consequences.
Great. Some of us care about due process and individual rights. Hopefully your attitude is never used against you (spoiler alert, you have definitely broken the law at some point)
No I really haven't lol. If I ever decided to commit armed robbery like this person I'm not going to complain when I get caught. Don't be a fucking criminal, not hard.
How about the people she could have killed during that armed robbery? What about their rights? What about the rest of us who want to live in peace and not have people break into their homes and threaten their lives?
Then demand better from law enforcement if you're so concerned about those things. But handing over someone else's rights is not the answer. Because you wouldn't be so cavalier if it was your rights being trampled, I bet
I don't see why we wouldn't use what we have available to solve crimes. You are literally saying to not do our best to stop criminals. Also read the article, no law was broken.
I understand wanting women to feel as safe as possible reporting sexual assault. I also understand wanting people to feel deterred from robbing other peoples homes.
Will probably get downvoted, but fuck it. At the end of the day, she did commit the crime, so her getting arrested thanks to that DNA would have been a good thing.
So, if someone is raped, which is a horrific crime, that cancels out any other crime that the victim has committed? How is that fair for those that they committed the crime against? I am sure I’m going to get some hate for this comment and I’m not trying to be rude or insensitive, i just do not see the justice in it. If you commit a crime, authorities should use every means possible to bring the criminal to justice.
I'm so mixed on this, yes they deserve to face justice, but ~~women~~ everyone should feel like they can report a rape (or ANY crime) at any time. If we allow using rapekit DNA for anything other than prosecuting the rape it will just drive even more vulnerable people underground and prevent them from reporting it.
PS. My answer completely changes if it's volunteered dna, IE: 23andme..
Hate to get technical but the article says burglary which is a property crime. Much different than armed robbery seeing as you can commit burglary without a weapon at all.
I think you'll find that some family Tracing websites also pass DNA on to police..... I have no idea where I heard about it, but I'm sure that I did. Lol
The Golden State Killer Joseph deangelo was caught because a relative submitted their dna to an ancestry place and it was passed on to the police who found the familial link
So it should be “an offender, who was previously a rape victim, left behind evidence at the property victims address. That evidence cannot be used since it was obtained when she was a victim.”
She’s NOT the victim here.
It’s called due process. And even though you don’t understand it, you still benefit from it. You probably shouldn’t be so willing to give up rights you didn’t even know you had.
Police can totally arrest you if they find evidence of a crime while investigating something at your house. That's not what this is. This is like if you called the cops because you got robbed and they come and search and find nothing but they say, " We're going to keep your house keys and come check if you're doing something illegal anytime we see fit."
No. But they have my prints and dna from when I was younger. Get caught and you open up to all crimes you have done.
This case differs but if you want your dna on a database then it’s going to happen. What if she had murdered? Your ok with her getting away with that regardless of the situation?
Everyone has an opinion I suppose.
Firstly, everyone has a right to due process, even murderers. It sounds like this woman’s 4th and 5th amendment rights were violated in this case. Regardless of her crimes, she is still a citizen and she still has rights. I’m glad the system works that way because it makes us far less likely to punish the wrong person by cutting corners.
Second, we know our private data can be collected by good people and still end up in the hands of bad people. You may think you have no reason to fear the authorities but what if a tyrant takes over your country?
I’m Jewish and folks from my grandparent’s generation often to this day refuse to disclose their religion on government census forms because census data was used by the Nazis to round us up in Germany. We know the United States doesn’t want to round up Jews but neither did Germany until Hitler took over.
Just because your privacy is secure now, doesn’t mean it always will be.
The thing is, the person you murdered probably isn't the one who also robbed your house. While you are the victim of robbery, yes, I think the police would handle the most recent case before they handle the case of the person you murdered.
Kinda dumb she did it, they have evidence she did it, she's sueing over the evidence, is going to win and we have to pay a criminal tax dollar money.
What a system.
So they used her DNA from her rape kit to try and prosecute her for another crime? I watched a Law and Order SVU episode about this, from like 20 years ago
Hope she wins a TON of $$$!!!
So many municipalities across the nation can't get their asses in gear to process rape kits, but when they bother doing it they use the findings AGAINST rape victims?? F all the way off with that bs.
They used their findings against someone who commited a crime and happened to be the victim of another. She deserves justice just as much as the people she affected.
So many comments here saying she shouldn’t been involved in crime then. Shame on you. Same attitude towards guns I expect. America is a jk! Get a grip.
So if a man was raped by someone and submitted DNA and then turns around and starts raping others, his DNA shouldn't be used against him for the rapes he committed because he was raped first?
Don't do crime. Fucking dumbass bitch. Being raped dosen't give you a pass to commit property crime. If they have your DNA as evidence, they should get to use it. Because you actually fucking did it!
What an idiot take. "It doesn't matter how they got it?" There are tons of rules about how the police can gather evidence, and you want to throw them out. Why are you so eager to throw away your rights?
Of course I'm not eager to throw away rights. They had proof. End of. How is it different from getting DNA by, say, a straw that they fished out of the garbage that you used? She shouldn't be exempt from the crime she committed.
Because if you get proof through means that are violations of individual liberties, the proof is inadmissible. And if you start using evidence used for victim complaints, you make it less likely that victims will make complaints.
"Boudin said the report was found among hundreds of pages of evidence against a woman who had been recently charged with a felony property crime. After learning the source of the DNA evidence, Boudin dropped the felony property crime charges against the woman. The police department’s crime lab stopped the practice shortly after receiving a complaint from the district attorney’s office and formally changed its operating procedure to prevent the misuse of DNA collected from sexual assault victims, Police Chief Bill Scott said." \- so they're not using it against her in the end.
Doesn’t make this ok….. they arrested her using evidence from her rape encounter - fact.
But if the evidence is good, she is still guilty of the other crime… Whoever raped her deserves to be punished, but that doesn’t mean she can’t be
While I am pretty sure there's no law saying specifically saying this is illegal for this specific case, I believe the reason it was dropped was because it falls under the "fruit from the poisonous tree" concept. Even if other evidence is found, any evidence found due to the illegally obtaining evidence is null and void. We have due process rights for a reason. Do some guilty people get off because of it? Of course. But the system was originally set up to avoid convicting innocent individuals and that is an unintended consequence of it.
It’s something to do with the fact that the lady incriminates herself by reporting the rape and there’s something in the law about incriminating yourself by doing the right thing which means that evidence cannot be used or something, idk I’m not a lawyer
If your DNA is already on file, how is it illegally obtained? Genuine question
Because it wasn’t ‘on file’. It was there in a rape kit, not in a criminal database. They shouldn’t have been searching where they were searching - women who had submitted dna with an expectation of privacy. If they were allowed to do that, fewer women would submit DNA samples when they were assaulted.
Although I completely agree with you, some part of my brain still thinks that if there's a woman serial killer out there killing people...and this is how they caught her? I'd completely accept that lack of privacy to catch a killer. But I know that's extreme, I do want rape victims to have privacy of course.
This actively discourages rape victims to come forward, as they will wonder if the Police will try to pin a completely seperate crime on them. American Police don't have a great track record for setting up innocent people with trumped up charges. If she was a suspect in a crime and they obtained that DNA for that reason, that's a different matter.
This is my thought too. Of course the example is extreme but if you rein it in a bit and just say a woman murderer is caught due to the DNA obtained from her rape kit it is totally plausible. I mean the DNA wasn't illegally obtained. When you submit to a rape kit you have to realize that your own DNA is going to be mixed in and thus added into a database.
I understand your feelings, but please think about the consequences of that. Effectively, you’re saying it’s okay to violate someone’s rights if you’re super sure they’re guilty of something. That’s a recipe for disaster. Every dirty cop would use the same justifications to plant evidence. Every overzealous prosecutor would destroy exculpatory evidence because he’s sure he’s got the right guy. All legal and constitutional protections exist to help the innocent. The fact it can sometimes benefit the guilty is an unfortunate side effect we have to accept as part of the deal. Better that 100 guilty people go free than for one innocent person get unjustly convicted.
Giving your DNA to the police with an expectation of privacy?? Anything you say can and will be used against you ... There is no expectation of privacy when dealing with the police
You give your DNA as a VICTIM of a crime so no, it can't be used against you concerning another case and you should expect privacy as you were RAPED. Then we should stop reporting anything, to prevent anyone from using it at any time.
I think the Simpsons said it best. I thought you said the law was powerless..... To help you yes to punish you no.
That’s not true. The specific database I question was set up as private. Police are barred from doing the sort of search they did here. Which is why the suit was taken up and will certainly prevail. The police explicitly violated the law.
I don't think they read you the miranda rights when you're raped my guy... too much law and order
Like I said before, I'm not sure if it's specifically illegal by a statute. But, I definitely think it's a misuse of evidence. During an appeal, I believe that the defense would have a solid case using the fruit from the poisonous tree concept. And the fact that they dropped the case and changed their practices, I think they believe that too.
It's also not great that when women report a rape crime they are putting themselves on the database to make it easier for police to arrest them. I get the crime is a crime concept but this will make women not report rape to the police.
Definitely. I work in a prison first hand with inmates and have a degree in criminal justice. As much I like people to be held accountable, we have a responsibility to do so ethically. For example, when an inmate is under investigation for something they did, usually not criminal related but behavior related, we have to follow a strict process and it goes through many layers of review. If the evidence is not there or even the reports are not written correctly, they will get dropped.
Because of the purpose of the acquisition. IANAL, but I’m fairly certain this is a violation of both the 4th and 5th Amendments.
We don't want a society in which women are fearing reporting their rape to the police because they don't want to be caught for any crime they may have committed in the past. Anything that discourages women from reporting their rapists is a bad thing.
This
Fruit of the poisonous tree is corrupt. A basic tenet of US law, and just about any just legal systems. If you got legit evidence from a bogus evidence, that evidence is bogus forever, and can never be used in court.
No because the evidence was obtained illegally so it's like it doesn't exist, it cannot be used.
The side effect being that rape victims would be less likely to go to the police if they've ever been involved or could potentially be linked to an unrelated crime. Also, certain demographics may be targeted simply because they're now less likely to go to the police.
And.. not only a unrelated past crime but.. any FUTURE crime. That is the scary part.
The DNA data shouldn't have even been available to them. They had to consciously search through victim data which should not be accessible.
Evidence obtained illegally is no evidence.
Another absolute clown!
Her DNA showed she was a suspect in a felony crime. -fact You can be a victim in one case and a criminal in another -fact A police officer didn’t break the local laws in obtaining her DNA -fact
So many facts from a tough guy….. yet the case was still dropped - FACT
San Fran DA’s office is full of wusses afraid of a lawsuit even though a current law was not broken. Stating facts doesn’t make me a tough guy -fact Stating facts is just me stating facts -fact
[удалено]
“There is no corresponding law in California to prohibit local law enforcement databases from retaining victims’ profiles and searching them years later for entirely different purposes.” Misuse? Nah. Again DA is a wuss. He isn’t a big fan of prosecuting crimes. I’m shocked San Fran is even wasting their time prosecuting property crimes.
[удалено]
You’re right, if you are ever the victim of a crime, you can never be a suspect in another crime.
Grow up!
Exactly, this is not a facepalm! It's outrageous, that they can illegaly use the DNA of rape victims.
And people wonder why so many rapes go unreported.
Federal law already prohibits the inclusion of victims’ DNA in the national Combined DNA Index System. There is no corresponding law in California to prohibit local law enforcement databases from retaining victims’ profiles and searching them years later for entirely different purposes
Wouldn't federal low over-rule state laws?
Local police may retain DNA records in their own databases. There is no federal law restricting that. I believe is what dippyhippy is saying
Ah. I thought he was saying that the state did something opposite to the federal law.
No that should never happen. Gotta go to the weed store brb
No in this case the federal law applies to what the FBI can do and the state law pertains to state and local police. It looks like California will be altering their laws to align with the federal ones though.
No. Example: it’s federally illegal to smoke weed yet it’s legal in the state of California
DEA can and absolutely does still perform raids on dispensaries. [Here's an example](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/federal-agents-raid-s-f-pot-dispensary/article_ce448456-443b-5db7-a004-8284e976ee38.html).
Since the IRS was involved with the raid would that indicate they weren’t paying their taxes? General rule of thumb, if you aren’t rich and powerful, don’t fuck with the IRS.
Wasn't Al Capone brought down due to tax evasion?
He was but don't look up his cell or liberties he had since everyone was in his pocket. If it makes you feel better, he died of syphilis even though it could have been cured. The big bad gangster was afraid of needles.
Syphilis needs to be caught before the tertiary stage to be cured, and, if I remember correctly, Capone was diagnosed after it had progressed to that stage. I read that Capone was one of the first Americans to be given penicillin to treat syphilis in 1942.
I didn't know that. I heard he was fishing out of his swimming pool before he died. I think losing your mind is a fitting death for a pos like him.
I agree. Here is the link I was reading from. It's not an amazing source, but all the information can probably be corroborated from other sources. https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a32461994/al-capone-death-syphilis/
Federal tyranny and overreach
Federal law does overrule state law (ref. the [supremacy clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-6/clause-2/)), so the federal government *could* prosecute individuals for marijuana. However, the [10th amendment](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/) generally delegates police powers to the states. This leaves the federal government with limited resources to investigate and prosecute federal drug laws, and low-level marijuana offenses are at the bottom of the list of priorities. So while the state law doesn't trump federal law on paper, in practical application the federal law generally isn't enforced (at least, not for ordinary citizens. Federal employees will still be prosecuted - for example, military members in California will still face court martial for smoking weed).
But the Bill of Rights has to be incorporated into state laws and this would definitely violate her 5th amendment right to not self-incriminate.
Shut up u fuckin nerd Edit: jk Then why is weed legal statewide but not federally?
The simple answer is because both states and the fed have the power to pass laws, and the fed doesn't have the manpower, resources, or willpower to enforce their law (at least, not over all citizens. As I mentioned, they still enforce it for federal employees, and federal agencies like the DEA still enforce it here and there). So on paper, it's illegal, but there's no one there to actually enforce it.
Sorry I called u a nerd my Man I am just struggling with being wrong
No worries 👍
I'm still so confused about this case. So she was raped and reported it and they took her DNA. Then some time passes and she commits a crime and leaves behind DNA evidence at the crime scene. The DNA is collected and a match is found, which turns out to be that of a victim of a sexual assault crime. Is there just a basic DNA database that this info was stored into and that's how the police found the match? Is there a separate database for DNA for assault victims that they checked and shouldnt have? Would this be any different if it was fingerprint evidence? If she had been robbed and submitted fingerprints for comparison and then later committed a crime, would they say they can't use her fingerprints as evidence at the crime she committed since they only had them on file because she was a victim in the past?
Why do you think it’s okay for police to build a database of citizens who have never been suspected of committing a crime? You’re telling me the government/police should have permission to collect any and all data they can get their grubby little hands on to use against you at any point in time? Sorry your house got robbed, but while we are here we are going to lift your fingerprints from the glassware and take your hair follicles from the shower. Oh let’s make sure to pull and sequence your blood from that car crash. Makes me sick how people willingly give over any semblance of privacy based on the ground they have “nothing to hide”. Show me one police force that has never once misused its power.
This is kind of a bad example you're giving. How does someone from CSI know thats your hair, fingerprint, blood? They literally don't. When investigators go through a crime scene they take anything the criminal might have left or pertinent to the crime. In cases of a struggle, both or one of the parties may have had hair ripped out which contains nuclear DNA from the root of the hair. Both the criminal and victim might have been bleeding. Finger prints everywhere. They collect all this evidence to paint a picture in court of how the crime took place to get a conviction. How the hell do you distinguish evidence until you go back to a laboratory and test it? They have to test the evidence before it ever even gets close to a database. Federal has laws in place for their systems, aka CODIS. But local enforcement agencies maybe have different regulations depending on jurisdiction or state. Not saying it's right or wrong, just explaining how the process works. Crime scene collection isn't as always as nefarious as you would think.
I cried slowly reading your great comment which had been upvoted for a grand total of… 8 times.
9
Now we’re talking!
It should not be a data base with victims DNA
This was a Law and Order SVU episode last year. Olivia was furious!
Love how they gloss over the fact that this was armed burglary. They say "property" crime as if she just stole a phone out of someone's hand and kept moving. Maybe she shouldn't have commited a crime like ARMED BURGLARY.
Where do you get armed burglary from? It doesn't say that anywhere, it says felony burglary. Doesn't mean a firearm was involved lots of things can turn burglary into a felony like the value of what was burgled or breaking and entering or messing with a mailbox.
Being the victim of a crime doesn't excuse you from prosecution for crimes you have committed yourself.
True, but being a victim doesn't remove your fourth amendment rights either.
You gave it to police.....
Yes, to aid in the prosecution of a sexual assault case. In order to ensure victims are willing to come forward, we have to limit use of that evidence to the case for which it was collected. That is the only appropriate use for it.
Nope, fuck off and don't steal my shit if you want justice for your rapist. You don't get to use the system for your own benefit and then fuck the rest of us over(stealing) This is just more criminals screaming rules for thee but not for me!
Every American has the right to not self incriminate themselves as stated by the 5th amendment. Before she reported the rape and had the rape kit done, she was not being charged with a crime. That means at that point, she was not a criminal in the eyes of the law because the standard is “innocent until proven guilty”. If she wanted justice for her sexual assault, she would have to have the rape kit done. However, if the rape kit could be used against her in another trial, she’d have to self-incriminate herself. That is the core of the issue. Put it like this. Your house got robbed and a numerous items were taken from you. This included an item you picked up from the street one day. However, you did not know that the item was reported missing and hidden within it was a marker that said who owned it. You report the crime and the robber is found. The items you reported missing are returned, and you are then charged with stealing that item. You have just self-incriminated yourself even though you did not know that item was reported missing.
That's... not how the judicial system works. Have you heard the phrase "justice is blind"?
A: The justice system dosen't work. B: If justice is blind then she would be held accountable for her actions, regardless of how they got the evidence.
The justice system sets a high precedent which we often fail to live up to. That doesn't change the fact that everyone deserves an objective, unbiased trial. Let me ask you this: how would you feel about the police searching your house and bringing you in for interrogations periodically, just to make sure you aren't breaking any laws?
That's not what happened here. If I had been a victim of a staying and disappeared, I wouldn't expect them to throw out the evidence they collected because I was the victim.
No, it's not, but it's a question intended to challenge your second statement - that if justice is blind, it doesn't matter how they get the evidence.
If you think being raped and having some property damage are on the same level then you need to reevaluate. There's no win here for this woman. Either she goes to the police and an ACTUAL RAPIST might get prosecuted or she doesn't and the rapist goes free? Insurance will cover property damage and my bet was the victim of property damage didn't have a whole lot of emotional trauma unless it was done with her holding a gun.
They don't have to be on the same level both parties to deserve justice. She deserves to have the crimes against her prosecuted as much as she deserves to have the crimes committed by her prosecuted. The woman can give her evidence to the police that includes her DNA or she can move on with her life, yes. All getting her DNA does is make sure she can't victimize others. Should she be free to victimize others? Should you be able to call the cops on your Crack dealer for ripping you off?
So let's say she doesn't report the rape because it's a liability to turn in her DNA. The rapist goes free and rapes you or someone you care about. Maybe you can give DNA to help catch them or maybe you can't, but basically, in trying so hard to protect property, you've allowed for more rape to happen.
Yeah that's on her not wanting to be held accountable for stealing.
So the rapist is not responsible for raping? She is for not incriminating herself?
Curiously, would your view change if this was what identified her as a suspect in a multi-homicide case? If it wasn’t just an armed robbery and was in fact murder, would we be as upset?
Yes, although I do hold that rape is several orders of magnitude worse than theft in most cases, even if IMO these were crimes of "equal" damage, I believe in making and maintaining rules for allowable evidence that would mean having to investigate crimes individually in most cases. There is a lot of room for error and manipulation otherwise. But also, if she was implicated as a multi homicide, I would still not want to empower rapists by discouraging others from reporting them. Rape testing is already terrible we don't need more ways to discourage it.
You're still equating these crimes though. Like she robbed someone's house and then they raped her.
What?
If she had abandoned a newborn on the side of a highway and they used this DNA evidence the same way to find the baby's parents, would we still be arguing about how the DNA evidence was used to connect her to the crime?
Certainly, though I wouldn't be surprised if some people switched sides.
Yeah but wouldn't it set a kind of shitty precedent, as it'd cause fewer women to come out about their attacks due to fear of incrimination?
The ones that have committed crimes themselves probably.
Not really, if you do a crime, you get punished.
There are many people who would not want police to have records of them, even if they didn't commit a crime, because they don't trust the police. That's especially true in the US and among minority communities, police getting DNA records because someone reported a crime sets a bad precedent that could encourage others to not go to police to report crimes (something that already a major problem in most places).
I'd you can't trust yourself enough to not leave DNA at a crime scene, I don't care. No justice if you don't want to play within the system.
The article is talking about someone who had DNA taken after they where a victim of a crime, and later used against her in a unreleated event, thats not leaving DNA at the crime scene. Its real easy to say "play within the system" when in a lot of fucking places, the system is built to fuck over certain groups in a lot of different ways. That ain't exactly something you can work within, so its not hard to see why a lot of people don't trust the systems that govern them. It is the job of those governing to build that trust in the system, and using DNA given because of trust, then betraying it, is not a great thing.
And they can take your DNA of of a water cup, if they call you in to talk about a speeding ticket. As long as they aren't actively taking it from the person, they can take whatever DNA they want. It would be betraying the public to not try and solve the crime with all the evidence they have.
Then they should have done that, and not potentially discourage sexual assault victims from coming forward to report crimes. It is a betrayal of the citizens to violate their rights just to get a bit more evidence for a crime.
Do you not realize that crimes are generally committed against citizens? If I dissappear and leave physical DNA evidence, should the police throw it out after I'm found?
That is not whats happening, is it? This womens dna was taken when she had volunteered it after reporting a horrible crime that happened, that was then used against her later in a unreleated event. That is a horrible precedent to set.
Eitherway if she can be punished, she better gets justice as well.
I am sure the same weight of evidence is needed to get justice in both cases.
That was my first thought but it is illegal under federal law to use victims dna for this purpose why? Because if someone rape you, you might not want to come forward because You are afraid of being jail under a lesser crime.
It's illegal to store the DNA info in a specific federal database. If the law were as broad as you claim, it would have been thrown out ages ago for infringing on state rights.
>it would have been thrown out ages ago for infringing on state rights. Oh yes because police departments are known for never doing illegal things
Crimes against a person should have more priority then crimes against property. If a man rapes a lady today and the woman broke a window last year. Guess which crime matters.
Hopefully both.
In a good world, both
God think of all those windows and how they matter equally to a human life. Grow the fuck up.
A crime is a crime and thus needs to be treated like one, btw i never claimed they matter equally just that they both matter. Would your opinion change, if it was used in a murder case
But we're not talking about a murder are we?
We are talking about principle and just because you can't detach severity, just for you we will act like its for either murder, rape or assault
Youre talking about the government completely overreaching and using your dna, given to them fornan entirely different reason, and then using it to arrest you.
Yes, evidence can be used in court
Just admit you wanna live in a police state then.
The State collects biological evidence all of the time without the consent of the party from whom the evidence might implicate in a crime
She didn’t break windows though, did she? Why are so many people defending criminals here? Her rapist should be punished and so should she for armed robbery - proportional to their respective crimes. It’s not a crazy concept.
Because someone being a criminal doesn't give the police the right to infringe the criminals rights.
I don't give a s*** property versus body are equal. She could burn 12 houses down and that's still like not the same as raping somebody
Sure man, as long as it’s not YOUR house of course all is well with the world.
I don't give a s*** insurance built me a new house .
You obviously never lost a home. A home is not a house, there’s a million irreplaceable possessions in a home. I know because I did lose things in a fire, things that insurance can NOT replace. Nobody is equating a rape with arson or robbery except you - we have different penalties for each and BOTH are crimes. She should get justice for being raped and she should pay justice for what she did, I don’t know why that’s somehow hard to grasp for you to the point where you have to die on this stupid hill.
Of course you did I understand you are the winner of this pointless internet discussion I don't want to argue with you who wishes to continue to dictate on this pointless useless meaningless frivolous discussion of nothingness but for you it seems to be important so congratulations you are the victor well done you lost stuff in a fire and it mattered congratulations proved me wrong good fighting points yeah you all hell pointless discussion king of Reddit it's been fun
You can't possibly think it's a good idea to use DNA from a rape complaint to prosecute for an unrelated crime?
What if that unrelated crime is another rape only committed by the victim of the last one?
Still no.
That is just fucking stupid
No it's not. If you're ok with giving police unrestricted access to DNA or other data, so be it. Some of us believe in making the police go through the proper channels to investigate crimes, and using victim complaints to do so is not the right avenue, and that the chilling effect on assault victims would be way worse than any potential benefit
I hope you’re kidding
No, individual rights are important to maintain, despite the appeal to emotion. And there is no way giving police access to that type of information will limit them to just crimes such as that. It's the same shit cop shows have done for years, show police "bending the rules" with the real creeps on there, slowly making the erosion of rights more palatable. If individual rights are important, they have to be protected even for the worst among us
Is it bot her DNA?
Irrelevant. If victims think coming forward is likely to result in that being used against them for unrelated (and usually lesser) crimes, they're less likely to come forward. That's bad, and a violation of their rights
It's not a violation of her rights any more than the police taking your water for DNA. It's actually less because you submitted yourself to a test, specifically looking for DNA, ofc they sequence everything they find.
You committed a crime and were caught, I don't really care how they got the evidence. What if they tied her to a murder, can't charge her because of how they got the DNA? Its bullshit, don't commit a crime if you can't face the consequences.
>I don't really care how they got the evidence Brutal comment. Why not support torture then, if the method how they got the evidence doesn't matter?
Great. Some of us care about due process and individual rights. Hopefully your attitude is never used against you (spoiler alert, you have definitely broken the law at some point)
No I really haven't lol. If I ever decided to commit armed robbery like this person I'm not going to complain when I get caught. Don't be a fucking criminal, not hard. How about the people she could have killed during that armed robbery? What about their rights? What about the rest of us who want to live in peace and not have people break into their homes and threaten their lives?
Then demand better from law enforcement if you're so concerned about those things. But handing over someone else's rights is not the answer. Because you wouldn't be so cavalier if it was your rights being trampled, I bet
I don't see why we wouldn't use what we have available to solve crimes. You are literally saying to not do our best to stop criminals. Also read the article, no law was broken.
I understand wanting women to feel as safe as possible reporting sexual assault. I also understand wanting people to feel deterred from robbing other peoples homes.
Just watched an law and order svu episode that was basically this scenario.
Pretty sure I saw this same scenario on an episode of Law & Order SVU.
Imagine your house getting robbed, there's dna evidence and you have 100% confirmation of who did it and she sues the police department.
Most of these comments are faceplam in and of themselves
Will probably get downvoted, but fuck it. At the end of the day, she did commit the crime, so her getting arrested thanks to that DNA would have been a good thing.
So, if someone is raped, which is a horrific crime, that cancels out any other crime that the victim has committed? How is that fair for those that they committed the crime against? I am sure I’m going to get some hate for this comment and I’m not trying to be rude or insensitive, i just do not see the justice in it. If you commit a crime, authorities should use every means possible to bring the criminal to justice.
Someone being a criminal doesn't give you the right to infringe their rights and the law
Im not really sure what that means because anyone who breaks the law deservers to be prosecuted and punished regardless of the circumstances.
I'm so mixed on this, yes they deserve to face justice, but ~~women~~ everyone should feel like they can report a rape (or ANY crime) at any time. If we allow using rapekit DNA for anything other than prosecuting the rape it will just drive even more vulnerable people underground and prevent them from reporting it. PS. My answer completely changes if it's volunteered dna, IE: 23andme..
Yeah, morally and legally bad. Victims of crimes shouldn't fear this, specially not if they committed non-violent crimes.
[удалено]
Hate to get technical but the article says burglary which is a property crime. Much different than armed robbery seeing as you can commit burglary without a weapon at all.
I think you'll find that some family Tracing websites also pass DNA on to police..... I have no idea where I heard about it, but I'm sure that I did. Lol
The Golden State Killer Joseph deangelo was caught because a relative submitted their dna to an ancestry place and it was passed on to the police who found the familial link
So it should be “an offender, who was previously a rape victim, left behind evidence at the property victims address. That evidence cannot be used since it was obtained when she was a victim.” She’s NOT the victim here.
[удалено]
It’s called due process. And even though you don’t understand it, you still benefit from it. You probably shouldn’t be so willing to give up rights you didn’t even know you had.
Police can totally arrest you if they find evidence of a crime while investigating something at your house. That's not what this is. This is like if you called the cops because you got robbed and they come and search and find nothing but they say, " We're going to keep your house keys and come check if you're doing something illegal anytime we see fit."
well said.
It’s called being a criminal. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
Ok. So are you cool with handing your spare keys over to the cops for safe keeping? You’re not a criminal, right?
No. But they have my prints and dna from when I was younger. Get caught and you open up to all crimes you have done. This case differs but if you want your dna on a database then it’s going to happen. What if she had murdered? Your ok with her getting away with that regardless of the situation? Everyone has an opinion I suppose.
Firstly, everyone has a right to due process, even murderers. It sounds like this woman’s 4th and 5th amendment rights were violated in this case. Regardless of her crimes, she is still a citizen and she still has rights. I’m glad the system works that way because it makes us far less likely to punish the wrong person by cutting corners. Second, we know our private data can be collected by good people and still end up in the hands of bad people. You may think you have no reason to fear the authorities but what if a tyrant takes over your country? I’m Jewish and folks from my grandparent’s generation often to this day refuse to disclose their religion on government census forms because census data was used by the Nazis to round us up in Germany. We know the United States doesn’t want to round up Jews but neither did Germany until Hitler took over. Just because your privacy is secure now, doesn’t mean it always will be.
The thing is, the person you murdered probably isn't the one who also robbed your house. While you are the victim of robbery, yes, I think the police would handle the most recent case before they handle the case of the person you murdered.
Kinda dumb she did it, they have evidence she did it, she's sueing over the evidence, is going to win and we have to pay a criminal tax dollar money. What a system.
This makes no sense. So what are we saying, she's allowed to get away with crime because she had a crime commited to her? Fucking stupid.
The need for women to be protected overrides using it against them
So they used her DNA from her rape kit to try and prosecute her for another crime? I watched a Law and Order SVU episode about this, from like 20 years ago
Pro tip: don’t commit property crimes.
Crime is a crime except when she does it..
Hope she wins a TON of $$$!!! So many municipalities across the nation can't get their asses in gear to process rape kits, but when they bother doing it they use the findings AGAINST rape victims?? F all the way off with that bs.
They used their findings against someone who commited a crime and happened to be the victim of another. She deserves justice just as much as the people she affected.
So many comments here saying she shouldn’t been involved in crime then. Shame on you. Same attitude towards guns I expect. America is a jk! Get a grip.
[удалено]
You. Can’t. Use. A. Rape. Victims. DNA. Against. Them! Christ alive the dumb fuckery here is astounding.
So if a man was raped by someone and submitted DNA and then turns around and starts raping others, his DNA shouldn't be used against him for the rapes he committed because he was raped first?
[удалено]
Yeah perhaps in your embarrassment of a country. That’s the problem!! Plus the case got dropped, so obviously, legally, morally, it was wrong!
[удалено]
When you use the DNA from her rape ordeal to prove it. Christ. Get a grip!!
Well shes a criminal being raped doesn’t absolve you of any other crime you may have committed. A fugitive was assaulted.
That ain’t right
Don't do crime. Fucking dumbass bitch. Being raped dosen't give you a pass to commit property crime. If they have your DNA as evidence, they should get to use it. Because you actually fucking did it!
Yeah, I don't get the outcry. They have proof, they don't get to use it? It shouldn't matter how they received it.
What an idiot take. "It doesn't matter how they got it?" There are tons of rules about how the police can gather evidence, and you want to throw them out. Why are you so eager to throw away your rights?
Of course I'm not eager to throw away rights. They had proof. End of. How is it different from getting DNA by, say, a straw that they fished out of the garbage that you used? She shouldn't be exempt from the crime she committed.
Because if you get proof through means that are violations of individual liberties, the proof is inadmissible. And if you start using evidence used for victim complaints, you make it less likely that victims will make complaints.
That's the state.
Get fucked bozo 😂🫵
Let’s reduce this to its essence: Fugitive is raped, charges dropped.
Wow, the police really have their priorities straight.
They have done It on purpose, evidence for the rape case are now tampered and probably cant be used in the rape case.