.
Feedback

Baltimore Co. Police to Halt DNA Collections of Suspects

The immediate shift in policy comes just days after the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the practice was unconstitutional.

Baltimore County police said they have, effective immediately, stopped collecting DNA samples from suspects arrested and charged with certain violent crimes.

The policy switch comes after Maryland Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that part of a state law that allows law enforcement to collect DNA from anyone arrested for a crime of violence is unconstitutional. The case overturned a rape conviction and life sentence.

The court ruled in a 5-2 vote that Wicomico County police violated Fourth Amendment rights, restricting unreasonable searches, when Alonzo J. King Jr. was arrested in 2009 and police took a sample of his DNA, according to court documents.

Despite the move by the Baltimore County police, Chief James Johnson, , is hopeful the court’s decision will eventually be turned over on appeal.

“Our job is public safety, and DNA collection is an invaluable tool for helping us protect citizens from criminals,” Johnson said in a statement. “I have serious concerns about this ruling.”

According to a Baltimore County news release, Johnson is still instructing officers to note the suspects’ eligibility to collect DNA on their arrest reports to make it easier to gather such samples in the future, should the ruling be reversed on appeal.

Johnson, the release continued, believes DNA collections from arrested suspects have led to many key arrests.

In 2010, according to the release, a 42-year-old man was convicted of a 2004 rape of a 13-year-old and a 2000 rape of a 14-year-old.

Police gained DNA evidence from that case in February 2009, when the man was arrested for the sexual assault of his 7- and 8-year-old female cousins, according to the release.

“We got this criminal off the streets for good,” Johnson said in a statement. “Without the DNA evidence, it’s possible that we would not have been able to do that.”

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Essex-Middle River Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Terry April 28, 2012 at 09:57 pm
I will ask for a DNA test through my lawyer if I was ever arrested and charged for a crime I did not commit. However, that would be the only way I would give up my DNA. I bet this will go before the Supreme Court.
Dennis Gilpin April 28, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Terry, The best thing to ever be used by the police agencies.A smart thing is to have DNA submitted to a data bank. It would make the identification of criminals and missing persons much easier.Our social security numbers go into a data bank and everyone accepts it. If you look at it our lives are already "on file ". Our pictures are on our drivers licenses along with a number.Protecting the public with DNA should be no different.Criminals work overtime to take advantage of laws designed to defeat law enforcement agencies.
Zoobie April 28, 2012 at 10:57 pm
"Arresting large swath........." Cannot happen! Fourth Ammendment Clause requires Officers to have 'Probable Cause' to make an arrest, and the Courts haven't made that task 'easy'. Many cases are thrown out by judges who ruled on insufficient probable cause. It's no wonder that many departments are requiring a degree in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, since the laws are becoming more dificult for Officers to interprit in their daily routines.Citizens need to educate themselves relevant to their Rights under the law, especially since the Constitution itself is under attack be revisionist judges.
Zoobie April 28, 2012 at 11:05 pm
DNA is far more accurate than Fingerprint interpritation. Fingerprint analysis requires at least 5-7 matching points to make a case. DNA is shown to be a comparison of one in several million people worldwide. I'd give up my DNA readilly if wrongly accused. As commented on above, look at the many wrongfully accused who have been released from prison when DNA proved that they could not have commited the crime.
Zoobie April 28, 2012 at 11:21 pm
It's got a long way to go before the Supremes ever hear about it. As I know the ruling, it was issued by The Maryland High Court. There's still the District Court of Appeals for Maryland (Federal Court0, and other Appeals Processes, and somewhere down the road. a Judicial Review to determine whether it should go before the Supremes.The issue could die right here in Maryland, but I for one, don't think so. DNA is too important of a Law Enforcement issue to just go away any time soon, especially in this 'Blue' State.
Terry April 28, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Dennis, thanks! On tonight's local news the ACLU is very happy with this ruling. I'm a product of the 60's and we suffer from the big brother is everywhere syndrome. I'm sure they know everything about us anyway. Not unlike the credit bureaus and google.
Zoobie April 28, 2012 at 11:30 pm
You hit the "nail on the head", Ryan. Try telling a Rape, Attempted Murder, and other Violent Crimes Victims that you're not going to use DNA comparrisons when arrests are made for that crime. DNA becomes the issue! No, This Court ruling won't stand!!!
Terry April 28, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Zoobie, the Supremes!
Lorna D. Rudnikas April 29, 2012 at 12:33 am
why spend so much money on lawyers before hand and then do a DNA to find out the person is innocent, but still out of a whole lot of money for legal defense? If a person willingly gives up the DNA prior to having to spend goo gobs of money who are we to say otherwise,, unless of course you are willing to dip into your own pockets help reimburse the poor soul!
Sean Tully April 29, 2012 at 04:51 am
Lorna, frankly I think the problem has nothing to do with people willingly giving DNA samples. It has to do with police requiring DNA samples from people arrested for certain crimes. If someone wants to give a DNA sample in their own defense, I am sure their lawyer will see that it is done and they can present that evidence at their trial.
Sean Tully April 29, 2012 at 04:54 am
"Arresting large swath..." can happen, the Fourth Amendment be damned. And, it doesn't matter if a judge throws the charges out, the people have already been arrested and DNA samples have been taken.
Rhonda April 29, 2012 at 05:33 am
I don't agree with the part about collecting DNA at birth but I do agree that it should be collected from people who are arrested for violent crimes. If you didn't do the crime then you shouldn't have anything to worry about and may even prove you are innocent.
Jimmy Thompson April 29, 2012 at 02:02 pm
Let's see: we can take fingerprints, pictures, strip search all violent (and many non-violent offenders), but we can't take a 5 second swab of somehone's cheek for someone arrested for a CRIME OF VIOLENCE, even if it means we save the lives of other people? We need the Governor and Attorney General to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court!
A.K. April 29, 2012 at 02:04 pm
I really enjoyed reading all the comments about this case and of course there's more to it than what they allow everyone to know. The fingerprints and palm prints from the scene DIDN'T match his. He initially was arrested on an assault charge and when he was booked and processed they NEVER took his DNA bc it wasn't a violent charge nor was he a felon. They came a year later and took a total of 6 swabs at different times. That is a violation of his fourth amendment right just to start off. They said they got a positive hit twice, but what about the other 4 that weren't a match? They covered that up and no1 knew about that. What they did to him was wrong and it violated his rights in more ways than one. I dropped him off at the scene after he received a phone call from this woman's grandson. I know he didn't didn't do this and now they've made everyone categorize him as this person that he isn't. They NEVER give the true story, only what they want you to know. He never should've spent the last 3 years behind bars, period. They should release him and due time for what they did to him around here. They ruined his life and violated him in many ways.
Rebecca Riegel April 29, 2012 at 02:21 pm
Thank you, A.K., for giving us another way to look at this. It's important for everyone to realize that constitutional protections are in place precisely to protect against the kind of thing that happened here, and that can happen to the innocent as easily as to the guilty.
Ryan Cole April 29, 2012 at 02:26 pm
I'm sorry if the police didn't follow proper procedure in this case. If that's true and his rights were violated then his case should have been thrown out. But hat doesn't mean that the rules that should have been followed are flawed.
And isn't an assault charge a crime of violence by definition?
A.K. April 29, 2012 at 02:48 pm
Absolutely! No1 knows everything that's gone on with this case. He was arrested for an assault charge which wasn't a violent crime nd again he wasn't a felon so that alone didn't give them a right to take his dna. Them coming a year later was wrong. They got his fingerprints and when they were ran in the database they didn't match and if they got a so called hit from this mysterious sample that was never takenwhy would you come 6 more times? They just wanted to make an example out of him and they definitely succeeded. He knew this woman and was even around her on numerous occasions after this happened to her so if it was him who did it why would you even allow him around and why not say something then? Im going to tell you why, bc he didn't do it and i know for a fact he didn't, but there was nothing I could do at the time. Bottom line is his fourth amendment rights were violated and theof the decision of the appellate courts was the right one. A lot
Ryan Cole April 29, 2012 at 03:03 pm
You're clearly closer to the case than we are. All I can go by is what the court documents say. (I'm not saying that the documents are right and you are wrong. It's just that the two stories contradict each other a little bit). Regardless of whether or not his case was botched, I think the general concept of collecting a DNA sample is no different from fingerprinting and photographing arrestees and should be allowed.
Dennis Gilpin April 29, 2012 at 03:10 pm
A.K., I understand an infringement might have been made but to cancel out a valuable tool like DNA taking is a mistake that will cause problems. It has to be thrown out or at least amended to make more sense.More families have had closure through DNA and more criminals are exactly where they belong.
Buck Harmon April 29, 2012 at 04:18 pm
Human error is prevalent in many cases that pertain to DNA. This is one of the reasons that the framers of the Constitution worded the document to sustain and protect through the generations as things change.... There are many opportunities for abuse with a DNA test, no matter the perceived accuracy percentage.
Not only a smart decision by the Court, but the right decision as well.
Dennis Gilpin April 29, 2012 at 05:38 pm
Buck, The decision to allow him "some" consideration "might" be understandable.To stop the use of DNA is not. Best tool they have to remove the low lifes off the street.
The decision to halt the use of it cripples the law enforcement agencies and lets the criminals get away with murder. Just hope the supporters don't have to deal with the repercussions.We all will until it is overturned.Very bad decision.Never heard of any abuse using DNA only that it caught the right people.Hardly abuse asking someone to take a DNA test if it protects the public.Unfortunately,many of these supporters have no idea what goes on in the law enforcement field.I am for only protecting the law abidding citizens not the ones who prey on us.
Greg Redmer April 29, 2012 at 06:18 pm
In the most basic of explanations. If the police want a DNA sample from the suspect of a crime and the suspect refuses they can get a court order for the DNA. It's very simple and normal. To take DNA and place it in a database as evidence for future or past crimes, without probable cause, is a unreasonable search and seizure.
Zoobie April 29, 2012 at 08:44 pm
It' apparent that the two sides in this argument are what they are and there's never going to be a meeting of the minds.' guess that's why we have the best court system in the world and that's where this decision will be settled.....for better or worse. I believe that at this time, the subject has been beaten to death, and i'm bowing out.
It's been great hearing how the general public feels, and I sincerely hope that Justice will be served. One High Court ruling never settles anything, so, we'll just have to see how it all plays out in the days to come. My only hope is that the Guilty will not go free, and that the Innocent will remain free.
Buck Harmon April 29, 2012 at 08:58 pm
There is no argument to this ruling...The Constitution has prevailed ...as it should.
I am still of the belief that better training of all law enforcement regarding Constitutional matters will improve the quality of life that is challenged by hard core, intentional criminals. We will never bat a thousand, we're only human beings..
Buck Harmon April 29, 2012 at 09:04 pm
What about the other 4 DNA tests that were taken that were not a match in this case?
Great question A.K. what did happen ? 6 swabs taken..2 possible matching hits...4 that did not match. Could someone please explain this?
Dennis Gilpin April 29, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Buck, On that count you are right. Hard core criminals welcome an opportunity to bend the constitution. We only want to use it as it was intended...to protect the innocent. I'm sure there will be changes by the supreme court so that DNA can bring those to justice who have evaded it so long.
A.K. April 30, 2012 at 03:00 am
According to the DNA act in order for it to be taken you have to be charged with a violent crime (murder burglary rape etc.) or you have to already be a felon. This does not apply for a misdemeanor (assault etc). They didn't have the right to even take his dna. A CO who works at the jail who is not trained or certified to do so stated she took it, but that never happened. They came with warrant 1st time, but the other 5 times they came to get it they didn't have warrant. That's when all this bs came about . The judge whom heard this case and sentenced him to life stated to him a few years prior "if I see you in my court room again, im going to put you away for good." That's what she did. She didn't want to hear that his rights were violated nor did She want to hear about the other ones that didn't match. Shthat's for the prosecution to prove. Im not saying they shouldn't collect it from felons, but I am sying they need to abide by the rules that they set forth in regards to the dna act. They're going buck wild with it bc they've been able to get away with it and it's about time smeone puts their foot down and protect the rights of the citizens whether they're free or locked up.
Buck Harmon April 30, 2012 at 01:35 pm
This is why I believe that before DNA usage is broadened , much more training is needed at the collection level...a bad, or dull tool in the toolbox is a tool that doesn't work well. The operator of the tool must be HIGHLY trained to get the most accurate, reliable result.
AMO, Esq May 2, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Fingerprinting is a lot less intrusive then taking someone's blood/DNA. Also, you have an absolute right to refuse a breathalyzer test and in most cases, you should!
Other Tim May 2, 2012 at 11:38 pm
All it takes to get a DNA sample is a q-tip to the inside of the mouth. Lot easier than fingerprinting.
"You have an absolute right to refuse a breathalyzer test" ? Only if you don't want to drive anymore.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something