Seagull
DOJ
Joined: February 23rd, 2007, 7:31 am

September 8th, 2011, 4:52 pm #21

Although Ted did commit crimes in California he was tried by the Feds because his crimes involved the US mail. The federal rules on DNA gathering may be slightly different.I was addressing Locri's post which is not inaccurate but doesn't go quite far enough in explaining the criteria needed to gather the DNA. The way I understand the document I linked to is that not only is the ruling not retroactive but if LE wants to gather DNA from an inmate there needs to be a specific offense cited to do so. In other words you can not just ask a California inmate imprisoned before 2009 for a DNA sample without having a reason.
Quote
Like
Share

ratman
DOJ
Joined: February 24th, 2007, 11:52 pm

September 11th, 2011, 9:28 am #22

Enough pussyfooting around and get his last coffee cup or whatever! Some of these laws are sickening.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 19th, 2008, 3:51 am

September 11th, 2011, 7:05 pm #23

I found this document regarding the collection of DNA from California inmates. It is widely assumed that because a person is imprisoned for a felony crime that his DNA is automatically taken and entered into a database. After reading this document I do not believe this is the case. It seems that the law requiring the DNA collection is not retroactive but only applies to those arrested after a certain date. Here is a quote from the document-- ". Collection of DNA samples from an adult arrested for a felony offense must be based solely upon the offense that was the basis for the arrest. The January 1, 2009, provisions governing DNA sample collection from adults arrested for any felony offense are not retroactive and so do not permit collection for arrests that took place prior to 2009." Here is a link to the document so that you can study it yourself and see if I have reached the proper conclusion. It is a five page pdf. http://ag.ca.gov/bfs/pdf/69IB_121508.pdf
Thank you Seagull for this research and info!
If Gyke Isn't Zodiac - I'll Eat My Hat
Quote
Like
Share

davidmm
DOJ
Joined: February 25th, 2007, 2:08 am

September 12th, 2011, 5:23 pm #24

Baffled. To me, this seems as ridiculous as a felon being able to withhold their fingerprints, just because they were arrested before 2009. I'm surethat someone has some reason, but, it's still ridiculous.
If true, that damned California is making me look bad. And no wonder EARONS is still out there. But I still believe Ted's DNA was already obtained. Maybe not all felons prior to 2009, but Ted's was.In any event, if the FBI want a DNA sample from Ted, it requires either Ted's consent or a court order. They are trying to get the DNA with Ted's consent first rather than risking a judge not granting the order.
Quote
Like
Share

Paradice
DOJ
Joined: March 9th, 2007, 12:44 pm

September 13th, 2011, 5:52 am #25

Why would the FBI even tell Ted they wanted his DNA? I'm sure they could easily obtain the sample from his trash without ever letting him know they needed it. Anything discarded in the trash is fair game and does not require a court order. That is, unless there is some federal law protecting prisoners' trash (which would be incredibly odd since this right is not afforded to nonfelons/everyday citizens).
Quote
Like
Share