Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
...All police officers may be asked to provide DNA samples in a move which has the Police Association worried...
The association said a suggestion DNA samples should be taken from recruits could be extended to all serving police officers...
Frankly with all the threats to personal freedom already visited on New Zealanders by increasingly prevalent 'anti terror' legislation and compliance, I have little sympathy... :|
What happened to the old chestnut "if you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" :?:
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:03 am Post Subject: Re: What's Sauce for the Goose...
Hi Mel,
I read the Herald article this morning with disbelief. The article does not clearly state who is behind the push to DNA profile all Police, but presumably it is either the Police Administration, their employer, or the Environmental Science and Research Services (ESR) the custodians of the DNA Databank.
Quote:
The recruit suggestion came after a recruit's fingerprints linked him with a serious assault in Christchurch three years ago. The recruit was charged with assault.
Great work, the Police system works and they should be commended for weeding this person out early. However, it seems to be a bit of an over reaction to now call for all Police recruits to be DNA sampled because of this. Seems someone wants to go after a mouse with and elephant gun.
This next paragraph in the article made little sense to me, think about it!
Quote:
Taking DNA samples would eliminate police from crime scenes and ensure no convicted criminals got into the police.
First off, not all 7000 Police staff will attend at the same crime scene, Police are trained to protect the integrity of a crime scene from contamination. Generally Police will obtain voluntary fingerprints and or DNA samples for elimination purposes from people who had legitimate access to a crime scene prior to the crime occurring. By law these elimination samples must be destroyed after the donor has been eliminated, unless otherwise stated by the donor.
Secondly, credit the Police with some intelligence. If Police can not determine through usual means that a prospective recruit is a “convicted criminal”, then the public is in real trouble.
A Police Officer is no more than a normal citizen, albeit in uniform and with certain statutory powers, but none the less a citizen who should be afforded the same rights as any other citizen of this country.
The Police do not make laws they uphold and enforce them. Laws are made in parliament under statute.
Police already find themselves in a precarious situation when it comes to their own individual rights. Take for example, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), where any person suspected of a crime is not obliged to make any statement to Police and has the right to refrain from making any statement to Police(right of silence). If arrested, Police will inform you of this and other rights.
No inference of guilt in law can be inferred from a suspect who elects to remain silent
Under certain circumstances where Police are being investigated for some wrongdoing under the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988 they do not have the same right to silence and are obliged to answer all questions put to them by an investigator. In such circumstances an inference of guilt could be drawn from their silence!
Police recruits already donor their fingerprints upon entry to the Police, in fact it maybe a requirement under the Police Act 1958.
Even prime suspects of a crime can not be compelled to give a DNA sample or their fingerprints for comparison against collected crime scene evidence. Suspects’ DNA samples/fingerprints must be given voluntarily from that person, if not already in the DNA Databank or AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System).
The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act 2003 is very clear on whose DNA samples may be obtained and kept for inclusion in the DNA Databank
The Act was designed with a strong focus on the rights of the individual and places rigorous requirements on the police as investigators and collectors of samples and on ESR as custodians of the Databank. The original act took effect on 12 August 1996 and covers in detail the submission of reference blood samples from the following people:
• suspects in any criminal investigation who volunteer a DNA sample for comparison with that particular investigation and/or inclusion on the DNA Databank;
• all persons convicted of a relevant offence for which a Databank request is made;
• any individual who volunteers a DNA sample to be included on the Databank;
• suspect and/or Databank samples that are obtained by compulsion.
Why should Police not share at least the same rights as any other person, suspect or convicted criminal. Are they going to be compelled to volunteer a DNA sample!!
I believe our Police Officers in the main rank amongst if not the most reputable in the world. Sure there is the odd rotten apple in the basket but they are weeded out and dealt with swiftly and accordingly.
Melody Anderson wrote:
Frankly with all the threats to personal freedom already visited on New Zealanders by increasingly prevalent 'anti terror' legislation and compliance, I have little sympathy... :|
Mel, point taken but I take this view on the subject, if the “law makers” are able to erode the rights of the very people (Police Officers) who are there to protect us, our rights and uphold the law, then what have the “law makers” got in store for us? Think about it!
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:53 am Post Subject:
Azimuth wrote:
Mel, point taken but I take this view on the subject, if the “law makers” are able to erode the rights of the very people (Police Officers) who are there to protect us, our rights and uphold the law, then what have the “law makers” got in store for us? Think about it!
Yes I had second thoughts about this one actually Azimuth. :oops: and intended posting a followup this morning. Indeed we must not condone the inappropriate infringement of the rights of anyone, police or otherwise. If we do not allow them the same individual right to freedom and privacy as we do everyone else, then we risk becoming hypocritical, don't we?!
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:04 am Post Subject:
Azimuth wrote:
This next paragraph in the article made little sense to me, think about it!
Perhaps then this is a strategy designed to show 'law abiding citizens' (eg. the Police) being submitted to DNA testing, therefore.... Why not other 'law abiding citizens' too? In fact, heck, why not everybody?
I will state quite clearly here and now that I am not opposed to DNA sampling being used as a crime fighting tool under the currently legislation, in fact I am all in favour of it particularly if it helps keep violent villains and predators off our streets.
Although in its’ relative infancy in New Zealand, DNA sampling has proved to be an invaluable crime fighting tool.
Fingerprinting is an exact science, an infallible means of identification. No two people have the same fingerprints.
DNA fingerprinting on the otherhand is not an exact science but is the next best thing to it, with figures like “a one in several billion” chance that another person shares the same DNA profile.
That being said, there are sufficient safeguards in current New Zealand law and Police Practices to ensure the integrity of DNA evidence. I would suggest few convictions are secured on DNA evidence alone, that DNA evidence is generally accompanied by other forms of evidence whether it be circumstantial, physical or documentary in nature.
However, we citizens must remain vigilant to any future intentions of the state, whether openly, by stealth or deception to relax current requirements under The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act 2003 to obtain, hold and use DNA samples.
To some small degree this has occurred already. Prior to the 2003 Amendment, DNA fingerprints of convicted criminals were required by way of a venous blood sample; under the amendment a buccal sample (i.e. a mouth swab for saliva) is now all that is required. This was probably an expenditure saving move more than anything.
Melody Anderson wrote:
Perhaps then this is a strategy designed to show 'law abiding citizens' (eg. the Police) being submitted to DNA testing, therefore.... Why not other 'law abiding citizens' too? In fact, heck, why not everybody?
Do you think this theory could hold any weight?
Certainly a different perspective on the matter, and entirely plausible.
Perhaps this is just press sensationalism or a bit of a “tester” to gauge the reaction they receive from 7000 conservative Police staff.
It would be nice to determine who or what the driving force behind this proposal is? Could it be the ESR castle building, you know more samples, more work, more funding and recourses! Or......... ?
I’m sure if there is any substance to this Herald report we will be hearing about it from Greg O’Conner and the Police Association in the future.
Mel, in your post titled “Legislation and the Guthrie blood test cards” dated Mon Oct 03, 2005 in the General Medical thread you raise a few valid points:
Melody Anderson wrote:
The screening programme began in 1969 and apparently around 1.9 million samples are currently being retained.
And
Melody Anderson wrote:
There are obvious concerns about privacy and their potential use to create a DNA data bank for every citizen.
The 1.9 million Guthrie blood test samples would certainly be viewed as a DNA fingerprint goldmine. There are currently 55,000 individual DNA profiles in the National Databank.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:07 pm Post Subject:
Excellent information Azimuth. Great to have your knowledge of the various legalities on this thread too.
Azimuth wrote:
However, we citizens must remain vigilant to any future intentions of the state, whether openly, by stealth or deception to relax current requirements under The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act 2003 to obtain, hold and use DNA samples.
Agree wholeheartedly.
Azimuth wrote:
The 1.9 million Guthrie blood test samples would certainly be viewed as a DNA fingerprint goldmine. There are currently 55,000 individual DNA profiles in the National Databank.
Yes. I would still be interested to know what the proposed changes to the legislation will actually allow the police to do (and not to do) with the Guthrie samples.
Azimuth wrote:
I’m sure if there is any substance to this Herald report we will be hearing about it from Greg O’Conner and the Police Association in the future.
If compulsory DNA fingerprinting of Police Officers were to be introduced, presumably it will be done as part of their pre-employment condition of service similar to current drug and alcohol testing already required by numerous industries pre-employment.
No test no job.
However, employment related drug and alcohol testing is a safety issue, DNA fingerprinting is not.
THE GUTHRIE PRICK- IS IT THE ARCHILLES HEEL OF PRIVACY?
Hi all,
Melody Anderson wrote:
Yes. I would still be interested to know what the proposed changes to the legislation will actually allow the police to do (and not to do) with the Guthrie samples.
I will try to answer the above issue for you, bearing in mind that these are my opinions only.
First off, I doubt there will be any legislative change to allow Police carte blanche access to the Guthrie blood samples. This will merely be a Memorandum of Understanding between Police and the Ministry of Health’s National Screening Unit (NSU) in respect of the Guthrie samples, which by all accounts seem to be in disarray.
A Memorandum of Understanding is purely an inter-departmental agreement between the signatories, in this instance the Police and the NSU, which will outline protocols as to access etc of the Guthrie samples. A Memorandum of Understanding is not statutory law.
This Memorandum of Understanding should be made public. However, the contents I suspect will only contain mundane protocols i.e. one person contact, ring between 10am and 2pm for service, we don’t do weekends and to whom do we send the bill? If lucky there may be reference made to protecting individuals’ privacy. (Sorry, me being cynical)
In fact the Memorandum of Understanding may well tighten things up. To obtain such samples, Police must act within the current laws as set out in various enactments. Any Memorandum of Understanding agreed to can not override statutory law.
Part of Police core business is to detect and apprehend perpetrators of crime. During “serious crime” investigations Police will use every legal means at their disposal to identify these perpetrators and put them before the court system.
During crime scene examinations Police may recover evidence including biological evidence such as blood, seminal fluids, saliva etc for DNA sequencing and checking against the National DNA Databank (NDD).
At this stage the DNA sample may be matched to a known person on the NDD, the classic break through. If not, the DNA fingerprint will be stored on the NDD and periodically checked against new DNA fingerprints.
Police may have a prime suspect whose DNA fingerprint is not stored in the NDD. At this stage the Police may request a voluntary sample from the suspect which he may or may not give, of course he is not obliged to give one. However if the offence is an indictable one (carrying 3 years imprisonment or more) Police may seek a compulsion order from a judge to obtain one.
Similarly it may be necessary for Police to obtain voluntary DNA samples from victims, witnesses etc in a process of elimination and to isolate the DNA fingerprint of the perpetrator.
The perpetrator may be one who is unknown to Police and has no DNA profile on the NDD, the classic “who done it” as in Operation Park, the hunt for the South Auckland serial rapist (Joe Thompson) See Link. This is where Police really put in the hard yards.
However, the crime scene DNA fingerprint can tell a partial story in itself and can be narrowed down to gender of origin and to a lesser degree ethnic origin. DNA can also be used by forensic scientists to determine parentage. This is obviously a very complex area. More can be read here:
Sometimes Police are confronted with an unknown deceased victim who maybe in advanced stages of decomposition, mutilated or burned beyond recognition (as the Americans say a “John/Jane DOE). To make identification, armed with what little information they may have obtained from the scene or using missing person reports etc it may be necessary for them to DNA sample relatives to determine parentage. In extreme cases this probably would involve Police obtaining Guthrie blood samples from the NSU.
For Police to obtain a Guthrie blood sample from the NSC would require them to obtain a search warrant pursuant to the Summary of Proceedings Act 1957 with a sworn affidavit outlining the facts. If the Guthrie blood sample applied for related to a suspect, the Police must have “good cause to suspect” which would also be outlined in the sworn affidavit. If a judge is satisfied with the Police facts then a warrant for the Guthrie sample(s) would be issued.
Of course the NSU could refuse to hand over the Guthrie blood sample. The Police would then apply for a Subpoena from the High Court requiring NSU to release the specified samples.
I certainly appreciate that the 1.9 million Guthrie samples would be an asset to agencies such as Police and forensic experts tasked with mass Disaster Victim Identification i.e.; the likes of Erebus, a mega tsunami or the touted H5N1 bird flu pandemic. I hope they never have to be used for this purpose, but could form part of the Memorandum of Understanding.
The Guthrie samples are voluntary and can be withdrawn by the donor from the NSU Database at any time.
I found this particular paragraph in the TV One article bizarre if not disturbing to say the least.
Quote:
The commissioner called for urgent action because a rising number of parents have been withdrawing their children's samples over concerns the police or others could access them without consent
What the #%$@…. “Access without consent”………come on………..MOH/NSU…..lock your drawers you dolts.
“Police and others”………………….well, well………..who are these "others" alluded to then, the cleaners, pharmaceutical companies, intelligence agencies……..?
My alarm bells will start ringing when the state proposes legislation to make the Guthrie blood samples compulsory and/or to be included in the NDD, and so should yours!
U.K. COURT SAYS POLICE CAN KEEP DNA SAMPLES OF PEOPLE CLEARED OF CRIME
Ruling highlights growing controversy over balance between privacy and public safety
Quote:
Last week, a three-member panel of judges agreed, saying that saving acquitted people's DNA was a "relatively minor invasion" of privacy that mattered less than the possible benefits to crime solving........
I am curious as to what the learned judges would consider a serious invasion of privacy?
Under present law in New Zealand, DNA of a person must be removed from the NDD if:
it was given by consent and that person withdraws consent
the person has been acquitted of the crime or the charge is withdrawn (unless their DNA is already in NDD after having been convicted of one of the scheduled crimes)
obtained illegally (not followed procedure etc)
Lets hope New Zealand does not follow a similar path, but its' anyone’s guess in this "age of terror" that we live!
