Abandon All Constitutional Protections, Ye Who Live Here: Kids Questioned And DNA-Swabbed, Sans Parental Consent
America is seeing a near constant and pretty terrible erosion of our civil liberties. In just one of today's, in Sacramento, officers investigating an eighth grader's murder not only question kids but take DNA swabs without parental consent.
The police department's stance was that as long as the kids gave consent they didn't need parental consent. As the commenter, S., who sent this to me wrote, "On what planet can a 12 or 13 year old give consent?!?!"
The story from gma.yahoo.com:
The Sacramento Sheriff's Department, which has been spearheading the investigation into the murder of Jessica Funk-Haslam, 13, said parental consent was not required in the DNA collection and interview of minors, several of whom were taken out of class during the day last week at Albert Einstein Middle School."These are interviews, not interrogations," Sheriff's Deputy Jason Ramos told ABCNews.com. "They are all consensual. Once it's done, there is a mechanism in place for school administrators to notify parents."
Ramos said the DNA collection was done at the time of the interview so efforts didn't have to be "duplicated." Ramos cautioned that the collection did not necessarily mean authorities had a DNA profile of the suspect.
Over the past few weeks, police have sifted through a number of leads and alibis but have been unable to name a suspect in Jessica's murder.
The teen's body was found at Rosemont Community Park on the morning of March 6. Jessica was reportedly arguing with her mother the night before and voluntarily left her home and boarded local transportation to a local park.
There is nothing under California law that prohibits DNA collection of consenting minors, said John Myers, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.
"I think the answer is, kids can consent, and if they consented and it was knowing and intelligent, [law enforcement] can do the search," he told the Sacramento Bee.
...But one parent who said her son was interviewed wasn't happy with the process.
"My child's in a room with two detectives being questioned and grilled and I'm sure he was quite frightened, which is very upsetting," Michaela Brown told the Los Angeles Times.
A kid isn't going to know that he or she can refuse to answer questions, refuse to give a DNA swab.
Here's the essential video, "Don't Talk to the Police" by law prof James Duane, explaining why innocent people should never talk to the police:
Seekers--- If you watch just one of Amy's videos this year, this should be it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 24, 2012 12:37 AM
Sad, isn't it? Instead of telling my kid not to talk to strangers, I'm going to be telling her not to talk to police or other authority figures.
Sosij at April 24, 2012 12:43 AM
Well, if the **Sheriff's Department** said parental consent wasn't required, it must be true.
I smell some lawsuits. Or some sheeple parents.
DrCos at April 24, 2012 3:55 AM
On what planet is this an interview?
MarkD at April 24, 2012 4:09 AM
Why is DNA treated differently than fingerprints?
Goo at April 24, 2012 6:36 AM
I always get upset when I see local police having fairs where kids can get fingerprinted, and is portraid as a good thing. Usually playing on parents fears, well if litle Johnnnny gets kidnapped ( a rare event) killed and mutilated so he can't be ID'ed (extra rare) except by finger prints.
Sorry, no, if Johnny gets kidnapped, you could easily get fingerprints off a hundred things in his room.
Joe J at April 24, 2012 7:56 AM
Were I running a murder investigation I'd be afraid of running afoul of the fourth amendment. I'd get a warrant for the DNA, lest it be thrown out in court. But that's just me.
Re: Fingerprints at the Fair - The print cards are given back to the parents to keep at home. If they ever become necessary or helpful, the parents can break them out at that time.
Steve Daniels at April 24, 2012 8:36 AM
What else can kids under 18 (or 21) legally consent, on their own, to in CA? Other types of search? Sex? Medical procedures/operations?
While getting DNA samples and "interviewing" potential suspects is OK, this method does not seem to be even if kegak.
John A at April 24, 2012 11:21 AM
Time for Sacramento to find a new sheriff.
(Try that in my town and heads would roll. Until five years ago we had one of the worse police departments in our county. The counsel fired the old chief and hired a new one who fired over a third of the force and whipped the rest into shape. We now have one of the best departments in the county. Great fire department too.)
Joe at April 24, 2012 1:49 PM
So ust to be clear, 12 yr olds can consent to surreder their constitutional rights, thi highest law in the land, but they cant consent to have sex? or take 'sexy' pictures of themselves?
I smell lawsuits too
lujlp at April 24, 2012 2:04 PM
Well, it's official: a teenage child can surrender DNA and have an abortion without a parent's permission, in some states, but she cannot bring aspirin to school without that permission.
Bizarro World.
mpetrie98 at April 24, 2012 7:10 PM
I just heard of a school district changing the rules to allow the children to bring anti-asthma drugs to school.
And this one makes no sense to me.
Jim P. at April 24, 2012 9:32 PM
2 things I took away from the video:
1) We have so many laws nobody knows how many laws we have???
2) "What are you in for?" "Lobster possession."
Sosij at April 25, 2012 4:46 PM
Wait a minute.
Who has Constitutional rights?
Not children.
That's why they have guardians.
So, too, do the incompetent.
Be careful about this, because unless you set boundaries for the possession and exercise of rights, you can be obliged to tilt at windmills by those eager to have you recognize the new mandatory behavior.
Radwaste at April 25, 2012 5:22 PM
Leave a comment