Dna

I would like to respond to Dan Rodricks ' column on taking DNA samples from people who are arrested ("DNA: Why wait for an arrest?" May 3). I support his opinion, but I think he could have included more reasons, especially for a general gathering of DNA. If all of us gave samples, the medical world would benefit tremendously. Close matching organ donors could be located immediately. Untold information could ease the tracking of diseases from the common cold to virulent cancers.

Maryland's highest court rejected a request to reconsider an April ruling that blocks state law enforcement from collecting DNA samples when a suspect is arrested, court officials said Friday. The decision puts the case on track for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. States and federal courts are split over whether taking a DNA sample before a suspect is convicted violates a person's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Law enforcement agencies announced last month that they would halt the practice for the time being.

Swabbing the ol' buccal mucosa for the unique genetic code of someone merely arrested for a crime violates that someone's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. That's the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals, and this ruling has greatly upset police, prosecutors, editorialists and other citizens who see no sense to it. If the cops can take your fingerprints, why shouldn't they be allowed to collect your DNA? We're probably going to need the Supreme Court to settle this issue, and because that court already approved strip searches of just about anyone arrested for anything - even for not paying a traffic fine - it's hard to imagine the justices declaring mouth swabs unconstitutional.

Dan Rodricks , whose essays I admire, is entitled to be wrong once in awhile ("DNA: Why wait for an arrest?" May 3). His willingness to subject everyone to DNA testing for use in solving future crimes is a concept very much in tune with George Orwell's classic novel, "1984. " Imagine if the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution, were being debated in Congress today. Sadly, most Americans know that it would not pass. Alan Shecter, Baltimore

The residents of Scarlett Place should be ashamed of themselves. Some lady has her delicate sensibilities offended because she saw some dog waste, so now they are going to the trouble and expense of DNA testing every animal in the building. There are a lot of more important things in this world that are far more offensive to most people. Rather than waste time and money on silly DNA testing, they should be donating their time and money to the local food bank or homeless shelter instead.

A DNA match led police to make a second arrest in the abduction and murder of a 24-year-old man found shot to death in a West Baltimore alley last April, according to court records. Aaron J. Davis, 24, faces 23 criminal charges in connection with the death of Qonta Waddell, who was hogtied and carried away from his mother's home by two men with handguns. Waddell was later found shot to death in the 3100 block of Windsor Ave. Charging documents say the men took $3,000 from Waddell and drove him around the city trying to scrounge up more cash.

Police around Maryland said Wednesday that they would continue to collect DNA samples when suspects are arrested for violent crimes and burglaries, despite a recent ruling by the state's top court limiting the practice. Several law enforcement agencies, including the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, were awaiting a decision on whether the state will appeal before they make changes. Gov. Martin O'Malley, Baltimore's mayor and a chorus of state and local officials called for an appeal of what they see as a crucial tool that has linked suspects to other, unsolved crimes.

Someone of the canine persuasion has been leaving his business all over the ritzy Scarlett Place condominium near the Inner Harbor. And the condo board says the only way to find the culprit: mandated DNA tests for every dog in the building. "We pay all this money, and we're walking around stepping in dog poop. We bring guests over and this is what they're greeted by. It's embarrassing for me as a dog owner and as someone who lives in this building," says Steve Frans, the board member who raised the idea of hiring a lab to identify which of the dozens of dogs in the luxury building is behind the droppings.

HERE'S WHAT'S scary about the case against Bernard Webster, the Baltimore man who spent 20 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit: There was no prosecutorial misconduct. Police didn't beat a confession out of him. He had a good lawyer at trial. And three eyewitnesses said they saw him near the crime scene. If not for DNA evidence collected after he had sat in a cell for nearly half his life, and a lawyer hellbent on determining the indisputable truth, nothing about this case would have suggested he wasn't guilty.

The criminal defense lawyers make the fair and typical plea for the "right to privacy" on behalf of the violent suspects they represent, but they ignore that the victim of a crime, be it an individual, a store or whatever, has not only lost their privacy but considerably more in the process ("Maryland police continue to collect DNA samples," April 26). There are consequences to bad behavior and if giving up your DNA is one of them, so be it. Peter Bell, Monkton

Like columnist Dan Rodricks , I have no problem at all with collecting the DNA and the fingerprints of everyone ("DNA: Why wait for an arrest?" May 3). The only people who should disagree are those who intend to commit some kind of crime. Since I have no intention of breaking the law, the only reason police for the courts would to use my DNA or fingerprints would be to exonerate me of a crime of which I had been falsely accused. As Dan points out, police and court time would be reduced considerably.

I would like to respond to Dan Rodricks ' column on taking DNA samples from people who are arrested ("DNA: Why wait for an arrest?" May 3). I support his opinion, but I think he could have included more reasons, especially for a general gathering of DNA. If all of us gave samples, the medical world would benefit tremendously. Close matching organ donors could be located immediately. Untold information could ease the tracking of diseases from the common cold to virulent cancers.

I found Dan Rodricks ' commentary regarding DNA testing and the recent Maryland Court of Appeals ruling ("DNA: Why wait for an arrest?" May 3) to be quite interesting. He states at the end that he can't think of a good argument against his position that we should all give DNA samples to the authorities whether we have been accused of a crime or not. Well, Dan, I've also thought about how useful having a large repository of DNA can be. Unsolved crime and a city mayor on your back?

The mother of a juvenile suspect who admitted this week to accidentally shooting 13-year-old Monae Turnage is being investigated in connection with circumstances surrounding the killing, the woman's attorney has confirmed. The attorney, Isaac Klein, said a prosecutor told him his client's DNA was found on Monae's bra. Two of Monae's relatives gave a similar account, saying homicide detectives informed them that DNA from the mother of the 13-year-old suspect was found on the girl's body.

Swabbing the ol' buccal mucosa for the unique genetic code of someone merely arrested for a crime violates that someone's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. That's the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals, and this ruling has greatly upset police, prosecutors, editorialists and other citizens who see no sense to it. If the cops can take your fingerprints, why shouldn't they be allowed to collect your DNA? We're probably going to need the Supreme Court to settle this issue, and because that court already approved strip searches of just about anyone arrested for anything - even for not paying a traffic fine - it's hard to imagine the justices declaring mouth swabs unconstitutional.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler took a first step Tuesday toward an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in a high-stakes case that blocks police across the state from collecting DNA samples when a person is arrested in connection with a violent crime or burglary. Gansler asked Maryland's highest court to reconsider its recent ruling or allow police to continue to take the samples while the state asks the Supreme Court to step in. At issue is whether taking the samples before a conviction violates an individual's constitutional rights.

When a high court ruling came down this week limiting the use of DNA evidence, police in the state were investigating 20 cases based on DNA  collected after they arrested suspects charged with committing a violent crime or burglary. Now, it's unclear whether any of  those cases will lead to prosecutions. The Court of Appeals decision puts in question the constitutionality of collecting the samples before a conviction, and the state is considering whether to appeal the matter to theU.S.

A former Annapolis man, a convicted sex offender who is serving a 15-year sentence for burglary, has been charged with first-degree rape and related counts after his DNA was linked to a 1993 sexual assault in Annapolis, officials said. An Anne Arundel County judge unsealed the indictment of James Albert Henson, 47, this week. Henson is charged in the rape of a 21-year-old woman who was attacked Oct. 21, 1993, in her apartment in the 200 block of Victor Parkway. - Andrea F. Siegel

The criminal defense lawyers make the fair and typical plea for the "right to privacy" on behalf of the violent suspects they represent, but they ignore that the victim of a crime, be it an individual, a store or whatever, has not only lost their privacy but considerably more in the process ("Maryland police continue to collect DNA samples," April 26). There are consequences to bad behavior and if giving up your DNA is one of them, so be it. Peter Bell, Monkton

The Baltimore County Police Department announced Friday that, in the wake of a Maryland Court of Appeals opinion, it will discontinue collection of DNA samples at the time of arrest from suspects charged with certain violent crimes. But in a press release, Police Chief James Johnson expressed his displeasure over the ruling, and said he hopes it will be reversed. "Our job is public safety, and DNA collection is an invaluable tool for helping us protect citizens from criminals," Johnson said in the statement.