Ralph Heinert-He looks a little like Hermann Munster-I'd call that probable cause
HELENA (AP) -- A bill requiring individuals charged with a felony to submit DNA samples is meeting resistance from civil liberties advocates and law enforcement agencies.
Rep. Ralph Heinert, R-Libby, told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he was sponsoring the bill to help police do their job.
But Jim Kembel of the Montana Association of Chiefs of Police said his organization couldn’t support the bill until questions about expenses were resolved. The state’s budget office has not yet determined the cost of the bill.
The attorney general’s office had similar concerns. Bill Unger of the Forensic Sciences Division said the workload for the state crime lab in Missoula would nearly double, to about 350 DNA cases a month. He said the lab would need two additional forensic scientists, each with salaries of $75,000 a year, to handle the extra work.
Scott Crichton of the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana said he’s worried about potential violations of civil liberties.
“Innocent people do not belong in a criminal database,” Crichton said. The bill, he said, created the potential for “population surveillance” by the state.
But Heinert said in an interview after the meeting that the bill had sufficient safeguards. A DNA sample would be taken from a suspect only if a court decided there was probable cause. More here.
I moved to Montana to get away from this kind of thing.
And usually these kinds of people (by "these kinds" I mean idiots) at least try to click the ratchet in a particular order.
This guy went for the triple dog dare right after the double dare (you'll remember this is a breech of ettiquette) by not even trying to claim it's necessary for convicts- just flat out saying anyone who is charged.
Found the comment below on a Montana blog
Finally, this one caught my eye: HB246, which requires a DNA sample if you are charged with a felony.
Not convicted, mind you. Charged.
Check out this clause: “(6) A biological sample taken pursuant to this section for the purposes of DNA testing may be retained for use in the DNA identification index without a further proceeding and without further notice to the person from whom the sample was taken.”
Wow. So much for that presumed innocence thing.