Home Page

About us

OtherLinks

DNA INFO.

Court Rulings

interrogations

Watchdog

crime scene

GOOD NEWS

BAD NEWS

Death Penalty
What the WatchDog thinks !!!

First of all I want to tell you that you do have rights and you need to protect them.  I see a trend by law enforcement to try and circumvent certain constitutional rights and I fear that some of them are in serious jeopardy.  My main concern is miranda warnings, search and seizure and privacy.  I pick these rights because they seem to be the ones that are seriously being violated the most.  Police are afraid to give proper warnings so they choose to see how far they can go before they are told it is illegal.  There seems to be a lack of training on when miranda is required and when it is not.  There are many investigators that do a fine job and then there are those who want to get the confession at any cost. A confession is the goal of any investigator but if it is not allowed, it is worthless.  Many times, a confession will determine the outcome at trial so why would you not want to do it right. 

 

Search and seizure is another right that is being abused.  I say this in relation to dna dragnets and databanks or databases.  There is a trend with police departments when they get a case they cannot solve to go out and collect as many samples of dna as they can.  These samples are taken on the pretense of  being voluntary and for elimination purposes.  What is not understood by most volunteers is that once they collect the sample and eliminate you, they keep the sample in a state databank and your sample is now being compared to other cases without your knowledge.  In Florida, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) maintains that databank.  Most states have some sort of dna database that is used for convicted criminal for certain offenses and is enforced by statute.  Within the Florida statute, they have also said that FDLE can put any samples taken into the databank to be mixed within the samples of certain convicted felons.  Your constitutional right under search and seizure says you have an expectation of privacy and there must be reasonable suspicion in order to search.  By maintaining your sample in a databank, they are violating your search and seizure right every time they compare it to another case.  You are being treated like a convicted felon and your reward for helping the police is a lifelong search warrant for your body fluids. People who cooperate with law enforcement should not be treated like this.  Lawmakers should not allow blanket search warrants such as these just for the purpose of adding to the databank.  Maybe we should insist that all parties that enforce laws or write them be placed in the database.  I can tell you that that will not happen.  In Miami, a police captain wrote a memo to the chief making a suggestion to have all employees submit a dna sample.  The first thing the police unions said was that would violate their constitutional rights and their right to privacy.  Needless to say, there were no samples taken. The convicted criminal databank is one thing but to add the dna results of people who just want to be helpful is another and if law enforcement is not willing to give theirs up than why should you.

 

Privacy is a scared right that we expect.  Without reasonable suspicion, government should not be allowed to infringe on that right.  There are judges around the country that have different opinions about databanks.  There is a federal appeals court in California that has ruled that convicted felons should not be subject to life long dna samples and that by making them give one is unconstitutional.  Now if they think that about convicted felons than you would have to wonder how they would feel about those of you that give voluntary samples.  That issue is still being argued and will probably take the supreme court to resolve it.  Keep an eye the court ruling page for updates on this issue.


Boston.com THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

Our duty to free the wrongly convicted

By Daniel F. Conley, 3/19/2004

BOSTON POLICE Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole and I recently announced that a man was erroneously convicted of rape in 1991 and wrongfully imprisoned. New evidence conclusively established that he did not commit the crime and should be freed. This was the fourth instance in the last two years in Suffolk County in which individuals were freed from prison because new evidence demonstrated that they were either factually innocent of the crimes for which they had been convicted or because we believed they did not receive a fair trial.

As district attorney, I believe that the act of freeing one innocent person wrongly imprisoned is profoundly more important than all the criminals we arrest, prosecute, and convict. On behalf of the criminal justice system, I have expressed sorrow and regret at what these individuals have lost, but this is not enough. So the Suffolk County prosecutors and I rededicate ourselves to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and integrity to ensure as best we can that the mistakes that happened in the past are not repeated.

There is nothing more critical to the public trust and the integrity of the criminal justice system than our ability to objectively and openly weigh information that speaks to a person's guilt or innocence. We have no more important responsibility than to follow the facts and law wherever they lead, regardless of popular passions or political consequence.

The job of police and prosecutors is not merely to make arrests or seek convictions, nor is it to preserve an indictment or a conviction at all costs. Rather, our job -- at all stages of the process, from investigation to arrest to indictment to trial to appeal and to the review of new information that surfaces after a conviction -- is to seek the truth.

When we determine that justice has not been served by an indictment or a conviction, we have an obligation -- legal, moral, and ethical -- to act decisively to correct the injustice. This is a sacred trust that this office has embraced.

Even in the best system mistakes can happen. While I am satisfied that we have policies and practices that ensure that my office responds affirmatively and appropriately to any potential miscarriage of justice, my obligations go beyond even this.

That is why, together with Commissioner O'Toole, we have created a working group of police, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to recommend new practices and tighter controls in the investigation and prosecution of cases, particularly as they relate to eyewitness identification procedures.

The Suffolk County District Attorney's Office and the Boston Police Department already have policies designed to reduce mistakes. We conduct DNA testing on biological matter at the beginning of a case. The Boston Police Crime Laboratory has a DNA section that is accredited and renowned for its accuracy and scientific excellence. My office does not oppose requests for relevant postconviction DNA testing, and we have a DNA Working Group to review cases and case law where DNA is at issue.

Our investigations into possible wrongful convictions have gone beyond any steps requested by defense counsel. Not once have we stood on the sidelines. In every case, police and prosecutors have made significant contributions in establishing the evidence that freed the defendant. We have used the grand jury to investigate alleged wrongful convictions as well as teams of our most exerienced prosecutors, police detectives, and the resources of the Crime Lab. In all these cases we have acted decisively and professionally in discovering and disclosing potentially exculpatory evidence.

The recommendations of our working group will take these and other efforts to the next level, ensuring that from beginning to end, our pursuit of justice is transparent, objective, and resolute. These efforts to constantly improve prolice and prosecutorial practices will further strengthen public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.

Daniel F. Conley is district attorney of Suffolk County.

 Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

census



Click here for an interesting view on your privacy