Police Voluntary Attendance

[Judith]

I understand (no actual experience !!) that if you are arrested you are asked
to sign a form consenting to fingerprints, photos and DNA being taken. If you
don't sign the form they can be taken by force.

If you visit a police station as a voluntary attendee, does anyone know if you
*must* sign that same consent form. For what's it worth - I don't think you
have to: you can say, no - I am not signing that form: and of course you cannot
take them by force unless you arrest me.

Anyone?

[R. Mark Clayton]

People who attend voluntarily are often arrested anyway.

The state already has my photo, they can take fingerprints by force, but can they take DNA?

[Judith]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:33:26 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 09:36:36 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
>> I understand (no actual experience !!) that if you are arrested you are asked
>> to sign a form consenting to fingerprints, photos and DNA being taken. If you
>> don't sign the form they can be taken by force.
>>
>> If you visit a police station as a voluntary attendee, does anyone know if you
>> *must* sign that same consent form. For what's it worth - I don't think you
>> have to: you can say, no - I am not signing that form: and of course you cannot
>> take them by force unless you arrest me.
>>
>> Anyone?
>
>People who attend voluntarily are often arrested anyway.

Yes - I realise that they may arrest you: BUT can they take your prints before
they do so?

[steve robinson]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:33:26 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes usually involves 6 or so very large police officers pinning you
down and forcing your mouth open for a swab.

been their got the tee shirt

[Fredxxx]

Hardly forcing your 'mouth' open. They can take a swab from an inner cheek.

[Judith]

If you had not been arrested, then they committed assault.

If you had been arrested, then you should have permitted them to take the
samples: you have only yourself to blame.

[Tim Watts]

On 13/07/17 09:18, Judith wrote:

> If you had been arrested, then you should have permitted them to take the
> samples:
>

Lawfully or unlawfully?

[Judith]

He could have permitted them to lawfully take the prints. If he refused then
they could lawfully take them by force. It would be his word against theirs
whether excessive force was used.

A refusal in those circumstances would be rather silly and perhaps asking for
trouble.

[Tim Watts]

The point I was really alluding to is:

Do they have reason to take a DNA sample?

Obviously if they have enough reason to arrest, then yes.

But if not, I'm not in favour of being bullied into doing something I
don't legally have to do - especially DNA which will be on file forever.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <22qk3e-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts

Someone I know who was asked to attend voluntarily was told that if he
gave dna/fingerprints without being arrested, they would be destroyed
as soon as he was cleared. If he refused they said they would arrest
him and in that situation the samples would be kept.

It's years ago but I'm pretty sure when it was all over he was told
that his prints/dna had been deleted from the records.

[Roland Perry]

In message <22qk3e-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 19:17:06 on
Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:

>I'm not in favour of being bullied into doing something I don't legally
>have to do - especially DNA which will be on file forever.

As we know, they can't delete it when you are found not-guilty, because
you may re-offend.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Crosland]

On what grounds? If they alreaddy had grounds to arrest then why would
they not use them? Is it the case that if they are taken unlwfully that
an application for their destruction can be made?



--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Robin]

I had taken Sara to be referring to what was certainly a very
well-documented procedure in 2005 whereby the police invited voluntary
DNA testing in some cases for screening or elimination[1]. That
involved 2 quite separate consents:

a. one for the sample to be taken and used for those purposes;

b. another one for the profile also to be entered onto - and retained on
- the national database.

I don't doubt the current position is equally well documented, taking
account of the subsequent legislation dealing with DNA etc taken after
an unlawful arrest.

[1] eg if I came home to find my partner had been assaulted and the
police had found what they believed to be DNA evidence from a
perpetrator they might well seek my DNA for purposes of elimination. I
would readily consent to that. I would not consent to its addition to
the NDNAD without further good reason. Of course the police might be
able to justify arresting me if I did not agree but that is a separate
issue where I could argue the lawfulness - and if I won require deletion
of the data from the NDNAD.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Sara Merriman]

In article <b4eb14b1-4adc-f116...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 14/07/2017 21:50, Peter Crosland wrote:
> > On 14/07/2017 05:20, Sara Merriman wrote:
>
> >> Someone I know who was asked to attend voluntarily was told that if he
> >> gave dna/fingerprints without being arrested, they would be destroyed
> >> as soon as he was cleared. If he refused they said they would arrest
> >> him and in that situation the samples would be kept.
> >>
> >> It's years ago but I'm pretty sure when it was all over he was told
> >> that his prints/dna had been deleted from the records.
> >
> > On what grounds? If they alreaddy had grounds to arrest then why would
> > they not use them? Is it the case that if they are taken unlwfully that
> > an application for their destruction can be made?
> >

I'm not going to go into details, it's not my story and I've no idea
how much more than I've already said he would be happy with being made
public.

[Graham.]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:49:47 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Re-offend?
Don't you mean offend?
The logical progression of this is DNA taken at birth, anyone in
favour, after all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Sara Merriman]

In article <qn5lmclmf43pehj34...@4ax.com>, Graham.

<graham...@mail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:49:47 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <22qk3e-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 19:17:06 on
> >Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:
> >
> >>I'm not in favour of being bullied into doing something I don't legally
> >>have to do - especially DNA which will be on file forever.
> >
> >As we know, they can't delete it when you are found not-guilty, because
> >you may re-offend.
>
> Re-offend?
> Don't you mean offend?

That was the point, it was a fairly famous quote :)

[Roger Hayter]

I suspect they are routinely taking, marking and preserving DNA samples
at birth, and one day will reveal this and seek Parliamentary approval
for using it. For "security" purposes at first. They are certainly
taking DNA samples at birth from a large research cohort with permission
of the parent(s).

--

Roger Hayter

[Caecilius]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:54:49 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>But will they need to ?
>
>We're already at the point where familial matches can be used to narrow
>down/identify/exclude suspects.
>
>Even if *your* DNA has never been taken, a match could be made to a
>sibling, child, or parent. It may already have happened - many times.
>
>I'm always a tad cynical when it seems "luck" that a person of interest
>manages to get themselves stopped in an "unrelated police operation". Teh
>bottom line is, unless it's clearly demonstrable in court, the police
>could be using all sorts of "interesting" techniques to identify
>wrong'uns.

In the US, they call this "parallel construction".

[Roland Perry]

In message <okg289$9li$4...@dont-email.me>, at 15:54:49 on Sun, 16 Jul
2017, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>After all, if it saves one child ...

Does it make a difference if that one child is called Charlie?
--
Roland Perry

[Graham.]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:31:34 +0100, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <qn5lmclmf43pehj34...@4ax.com>, Graham.
><graham...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:49:47 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In message <22qk3e-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 19:17:06 on
>> >Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:
>> >
>> >>I'm not in favour of being bullied into doing something I don't legally
>> >>have to do - especially DNA which will be on file forever.
>> >
>> >As we know, they can't delete it when you are found not-guilty, because
>> >you may re-offend.
>>
>> Re-offend?
>> Don't you mean offend?
>
>That was the point, it was a fairly famous quote :)

Like our maths teacher, upon realising he had caned the wrong boy
would say, "That's for the time I didn't catch you".

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Vir Campestris]

On 15/07/2017 23:33, Graham. wrote:
> The logical progression of this is DNA taken at birth, anyone in
> favour, after all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

I fear false positives. Most jurors will not understand statistics.

Andy

[Roland Perry]

In message <okgipi$76q$2...@dont-email.me>, at 21:41:03 on Sun, 16 Jul
2017, Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> The logical progression of this is DNA taken at birth, anyone in
>> favour, after all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
>
>I fear false positives. Most jurors will not understand statistics.

But hopefully the defence barrister will have heard of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Nor will they need to. If statistics are involved, they will be
explained to them in terms that they can understand.

But any systems in place should be robust enough to make false positives
almost impossible. It's in the development of such systems that
statisticians need to be involved.

But it has to be remembered that DNA evidence is only relevant in a very
small percentage of crimes anyway, and may well help the defence in most
of those as it can eliminate the possibility that the accused did it.
It's far easier to show there is no match than to show the existence of
one. And if it helps identify the true perpetrator, what's not to like?

And in other non-criminal activities where proof of identity is needed,
what better than your DNA which is absolutely unique?

I think the fears of those who oppose a universal DNA data-base of
everyone are largely exaggerated.

[Tim Watts]

1) Identical twins have posed a problem until very recently as their DNA
varies by a very subtle amount, mostly due to lifestyle related mutations.

2) Does not the standard DNA profiling only sample a subset of the DNA?
Which leaves the possibility of two different samples having the same
signature profile?


All of this is fine IF the judge and jurors understand the limits of the
test.

[Norman Wells]

On 17/07/2017 11:25, Tim Watts wrote:
> On 17/07/17 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 16/07/2017 21:41, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>> On 15/07/2017 23:33, Graham. wrote:
>>>> The logical progression of this is DNA taken at birth, anyone in
>>>> favour, after all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
>>>
>>> I fear false positives. Most jurors will not understand statistics.
>>
>> Nor will they need to. If statistics are involved, they will be
>> explained to them in terms that they can understand.
>>
>> But any systems in place should be robust enough to make false
>> positives almost impossible. It's in the development of such systems
>> that statisticians need to be involved.
>>
>> But it has to be remembered that DNA evidence is only relevant in a
>> very small percentage of crimes anyway, and may well help the defence
>> in most of those as it can eliminate the possibility that the accused
>> did it. It's far easier to show there is no match than to show the
>> existence of one. And if it helps identify the true perpetrator,
>> what's not to like?
>>
>> And in other non-criminal activities where proof of identity is
>> needed, what better than your DNA which is absolutely unique?
>
> 1) Identical twins have posed a problem until very recently as their DNA
> varies by a very subtle amount, mostly due to lifestyle related mutations.

Yes, they pose a particular problem, but they're not very common and
they're not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

> 2) Does not the standard DNA profiling only sample a subset of the DNA?
> Which leaves the possibility of two different samples having the same
> signature profile?

Yes, but the number of markers and their prevalence in humans is such
that a full match means only one in a billion, ie about 7 people on
earth. If you have any corroborative evidence at all, that clinches it
beyond any reasonable doubt.

> All of this is fine IF the judge and jurors understand the limits of the
> test.

That's what barristers are for. It's their job.

[Roland Perry]

In message <cufu3e-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 11:25:48 on
Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:

>2) Does not the standard DNA profiling only sample a subset of
>the DNA? Which leaves the possibility of two different samples having
>the same signature profile?

Even if that were more commonly the case, some common sense has to be
applied. Let's say you are trying to catch a middle-aged robber pictured
on CCTV who has left some DNA behind.

Would you really lock up, on the basis of DNA matching alone, a child,
or middle-aged man who emigrated to Australia ten years ago and has a
solid alibi?

--
Roland Perry

[tabb...@gmail.com]

The presence of DNA does not in itself mean the person did the crime. Sometimes it doesn't even prove they were ever there.


NT

[Norman Wells]

On 17/07/2017 13:42, Jethro_uk wrote:

> It does, they match "markers". AIBUI, it's a bit like using someones
> surname and house number to try and get a 1:1 match.

>
>>
>>
>> All of this is fine IF the judge and jurors understand the limits of the
>> test.
>

> As soon as I see an "if" in law, I get worried. (See also "common sense").

>
>>
>>
>>> I think the fears of those who oppose a universal DNA data-base of
>>> everyone are largely exaggerated.
>

> "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" ?

If there's no DNA match it actually eliminates the suspect. I'd have
thought that was quite beneficial to anyone who is innocent.

[Adam Funk]

Also very beneficial to anyone with access to the database & an
inclination to blackmail: pay up or I'll share your DNA with life
insurance companies & you'll never be able to get a mortgage; pay up
or I'll let your husband know about your child's DNA; &c.

[Adam Funk]

On 2017-07-17, Jethro_uk wrote:

> I don't think that level of DNA detail is stored. An entire genome is
> *massive*.

True for the first example, but as to the second, don't we know that
police-grade use of DNA is good enough to find close relatives of
someone who left evidence at a crime scene?

[Janet]

In article <2kru3ex...@news.ducksburg.com>, a24...@ducksburg.com
says...

The sky is falling, chickenlicken.

Ever since paper health records began there have been ample
opportunities for hospital staff, GP receptionists etc to blackmail
patients with threats to tell secrets to the spouse, insurer, employer
etc.

Janet.

[Caecilius]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:19:12 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

You need to be careful with what that "one in a billion" really means.
There are 365 possible birthdays in a year; but you only need a group
of 23 people to have a 50% chance that two people will share the same
birthday. This is the "birthday paradox", and should be considered
whenever you are trying to compare pairs of things like in the DNA
matching.

[Vir Campestris]

On 17/07/2017 12:19, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 17/07/2017 11:25, Tim Watts wrote:

<snip>

>> All of this is fine IF the judge and jurors understand the limits of
>> the test.
>
> That's what barristers are for. It's their job.
>

AIUI there are two barristers, one whose job is to secure a conviction,
and one whose job it is to secure an acquittal.

It seems to me that in the absence of compelling, obvious, evidence the
better barrister will win. I hope you are all honest enough not to try
for what you believe to be the wrong result - but I'd place far less
confidence in that than I would in Bayesian statistics. Especially as
the earlier link to "Prosecutor's fallacy" makes it clear to me that the
legal profession is several hundred years behind in the area of statistics.

I place even less confidence in the man in the street understanding either.

Andy

[Norman Wells]

First, it's not a paradox, merely a false and foolish assumption.

Second, it's a sham that is not parallel at all with the DNA case.

With DNA, you start with an actual specific sample, and you try to find
a match with that. The equivalent in your birthdays example would be to
ask the first person what birthdate they have, or select a date at
random, and then ask every successive person if they were born on that
date too. Then, you'll get the average you expect of only one in every 365.

With DNA, you're not trying to find *any* two people who match each
other but some*one* who matches the specific sample they have already.
And the odds against a full match with that are a billion to one.

[Roland Perry]

In message <a35qmc5cp7mn4j84v...@4ax.com>, at 20:55:08 on
Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Caecilius <nos...@spamless.invalid> remarked:

>>> 2) Does not the standard DNA profiling only sample a subset of the DNA?
>>> Which leaves the possibility of two different samples having the same
>>> signature profile?
>>
>>Yes, but the number of markers and their prevalence in humans is such
>>that a full match means only one in a billion, ie about 7 people on
>>earth. If you have any corroborative evidence at all, that clinches it
>>beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
>You need to be careful with what that "one in a billion" really means.
>There are 365 possible birthdays in a year; but you only need a group
>of 23 people to have a 50% chance that two people will share the same
>birthday. This is the "birthday paradox", and should be considered
>whenever you are trying to compare pairs of things like in the DNA
>matching.

Trumped by the "Prosecutor's Fallacy" on which your flawed analogy above
is based.
--
Roland Perry

[tabb...@gmail.com]

Maybe I'm being thick but why would

> share your DNA with life
> insurance companies

result in

> you'll never be able to get a mortgage

or

> or I'll let your husband know about your child's DNA

cause a problem?


NT

[Tim Watts]

On 17/07/17 22:28, Norman Wells wrote:

> With DNA, you're not trying to find *any* two people who match each
> other but some*one* who matches the specific sample they have already.
> And the odds against a full match with that are a billion to one.
>

You said "full match" - but is that against a full genome sequence, or
against the forensic signature that they would actually sequence?

[Norman Wells]

Only against the specified markers, not the full sequence.

[Handsome Jack]

Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> posted
>On 13/07/17 15:28, Judith wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:52:54 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/07/17 09:18, Judith wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you had been arrested, then you should have permitted them to take the
>>>> samples:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lawfully or unlawfully?
>> He could have permitted them to lawfully take the prints. If he
>>refused then
>> they could lawfully take them by force. It would be his word against theirs
>> whether excessive force was used.
>> A refusal in those circumstances would be rather silly and perhaps
>>asking for
>> trouble.
>>
>
>The point I was really alluding to is:
>
>Do they have reason to take a DNA sample?
>
>Obviously if they have enough reason to arrest, then yes.

That's not obvious at all.


--
Jack

[Handsome Jack]

Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> posted

>On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:52:54 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 13/07/17 09:18, Judith wrote:
>>
>>> If you had been arrested, then you should have permitted them to take the
>>> samples:
>>>
>>
>>Lawfully or unlawfully?
>
>He could have permitted them to lawfully take the prints. If he refused then
>they could lawfully take them by force. It would be his word against theirs
>whether excessive force was used.
>
>A refusal in those circumstances would be rather silly

Why? Perhaps the law grants certain rights to those who refuse to
consent that it does not grant to those who do consent.

For example, it could be that, if your DNA was taken by force, you can
later apply to have it removed from the NDNAD, whereas if you consented,
you can't. If so, then withholding consent wouldn't be silly at all.

I have no idea whether this is the case; I've just cited it as one of
many possible cases that would make refusal not "silly".

--
Jack

[Judith]

I don't think that what you surmise is correct: I would still describe refusing
and then being arrested just so that prints could be taken as being silly.

[Handsome Jack]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dna-farce-my-nightmare-by-white-man-charge
d-in-hunt-for-black-rapist-6654876.html

A white man who was wrongly charged with rape even though the victim
said her attacker was black described his "nightmare" ordeal for the
first time yesterday.

... Mr Minick was arrested by "cold case" detectives reinvestigating an
attack on a 17-year-old girl in Bexleyheath, Kent.

... He said [his earlier unrelated] conviction made him an easy target
for detectives desperate to solve the crime. During hours of
questioning, three police officers claimed they had watertight DNA
evidence linking him to the attack. They told him one of his hairs had
been found on the victim's ring. But they did not mention her statement
describing her attacker as "black, large and tall". Mr Minick is 5ft 6in
and slim.

--
Jack