DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus DNA Sample For A Drivers License?

I heard an interesting point made about a DNA requirement to get a drivers license. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the idea and was interested to see what posters thought about this. There are many aspects of it that I think could or maybe should be considered on this topic. There are constitutional aspects to be considered and there are also reasons why that may or may not apply on this topic.

In the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to privacy is implied by the guarantee of due process for all individuals, meaning that the state cannot exert undue control over citizens' private lives.

In yet another legal opinion I've seen the fourth amendment would require a warrant or an applicable warrant exception before a DNA sample can be retested for additional genetic information.” If your genetic privacy is violated in this way, you have many rights, including a Proper Defense.

Yet those examples are based on criminal charges requiring you to give your DNA. Not for a privilege you are not guaranteed. We all know and have been told many times that a drivers license is a privilege and not a right. Of course there were no cars when the constitution was written, but I digress. So thus with it being a privilege and not a right, does a state have the right to require a DNA sample in order for you to get a drivers license?

We all know that many if not most crimes are solved at least in part by DNA evidence. As such having a complete data base of everyone would aid law enforcement in their efforts to solve criminal investigations. At the same time is giving out your personal human imprint something as a citizen you feel they have a right to require?

I find it a rather complicated issue and one that could make for a good discussion.

DNA is none of their business

I actually don't disagree with you but my question is more revolved around do they have the right to require it since they are under no obligation to issue you a drivers license unless you meet their requests? I mean they have tests, requirements for auto insurance and other guidelines required of you in order to get or retain a license. So for me it's more a question of if it would be legal for them to require a DNA sample to get a license.

It shouldn't be.

No…

Probable cause.

I feel the same way about micro chipping people.

Have you ever taken a blood test? How about have you had a surgery?

Someone somewhere has a sample and can get your DNA. I know that by law, that info is supposed to be a closely held secret. But someone will try to get them.

I'm pretty sure they don't run a DNA test off a blood sample... but I guess in general you're correct, that a hospital or lab has taken your blood and thus could have your DNA... which is protected medical info...

I don't want the government requiring my DNA unless they have a court order.... I get that it's probably not that hard to get my DNA, but have zero desire to make it a requirement for license...

Hippa laws exist for a reason.

They can have my DNA when they can pry it from my cold dead hands

You are probably right about then not running a DNA, but what's to say they don't store your blood for another time?

Thus the reason I said something about the laws...

J\C Generally… Once the tests are done, lab staff ensure the electronic results are delivered quickly to the patient’s care team for diagnosis and potential treatment. After the results have been communicated, the blood samples are stored for a few days before they are discarded. Hippa laws restrict labs from sharing samples or results with any entity other than the patient’s care team. So states would need to change federal Hippa laws to implement DNA sharing and sampling.

j/c

I would like to remind people that if you're arrested for a felony in the state of Ohio, they take a DNA sample. They don't wait until you're convicted. You do not go through the legal process before they take your DNA. Due process is not a consideration. So even if those charges are later dropped or you're found not guilty, they still have your DNA.

That's exactly what's supposed to happen, but does it actually work that way? I'm not a conspiracy guy by any means, but there have been so many things that were supposed to be, that weren't.

Hell, I got arrested for something that should have been a civil case almost 20 years ago. The case was dropped, the prosecutor was reprimanded by the judge, but my DNA got put into the system none the less. It’s never caused any issues, but I had no choice and it pissed me off too, so I get where you are coming from.