Our founders thought some freedoms should be in our Constitution. They couldn’t agree on all of them, so they became the first ten amendments. amendments. The Bill of Rights was passed after the Constitution was ratified. These first ten amendments had the effect of limiting how government could impose itself on a citizen.
The Idaho legislature has worked hard for many years to define freedoms for “the unborn”, so now we have a real mess of conflicting laws saying abortion is illegal. I doubt they will get to work cleaning up any of these conflicts this session, but I wonder, given the recent events in my town, whether any legislator would consider protecting us against unwarranted searches.
By the way, if you didn’t know, I live in Moscow, Idaho. Yeah, we’ve been in the news a bit lately.
The Fourth Amendment protects us from “unreasonable search” and specifies that warrants for searches shall specify probable cause. The courts describe the details, and they are being redefined as the world changes.
No founder knew about DNA. But we have a case in our town that just might pivot on such evidence.
Some states have decided to weigh in on their interpretation of this freedom. Idaho should too. Clarity for the investigating agencies helps convictions stick when the rules are followed. Otherwise, convictions can become lake house payments for appellant lawyers.
Defining this freedom for modern times would take some careful consideration and study. DNA databases are often proprietary. And these private companies can and do develop their own rules for how their information can be used. But they can also be bought and sold. And with these transactions, their assets, their DNA databases, are transferred.
Think about it. You sign on to get some genealogical information. Maybe you read the long legal document before you give them your credit card info. You don’t plan on committing any major crimes soon, so you figure it’s just for the lawyers to argue about.
But your information can also tell an investigator about your relatives. The DNA they got from a crime scene might suggest some relation of yours. That relative didn’t give permission. You may not know your crazy uncle really was crazy, maybe homicidal. But you just fingered him. Maybe you’re alright with that use of that information. Uncle Charlie might not be. And if he has good lawyers we’re now on shifting sands.
I would challenge the Idaho legislature to consider this work. Indeed, given their embrace of freedom, I would hope the Idaho Freedom Foundation would get on board. Maybe they have, I don’t know.
I have no idea if any legislators are considering this. Given their track records, I bet they are just waiting for some “model legislation” from ALEC. That’s too bad. I believe we here in Idaho have some thinking and some work to do.
We want crimes solved. We want to feel safe in our communities. Given the crowds down at the pool hall last week, I’d say the students have returned here to our college town from their Christmas break and feel pretty safe. But there is a long road ahead for trial and conviction. Maybe just seeing a suspect in orange coveralls makes people feel safe.
Defining the legal limits of DNA database searches will help law enforcement know how to search. Further, it should protect us from unwarranted searches by our government. Balancing this is the work our legislators should be doing. I want our system of justice to serve us all.
(image)
Share on Facebook
