3 ms·
> “We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for committing any crimes?’” But
by megablast 8y ago
> “We’ll say, ‘Listen, we’ve had stuff in the area. Would you mind giving us consent to take your DNA, so we can rule you out for committing any crimes?’”
But this is exactly what they are doing? It is an accurate description. Of course they keep it for future crimes too.
- renholder 8y agoIt's actually the inverse: They suspect the individual but have no other recourse but to suggest to the suspect that they want to rule him out. It's akin to when police ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The question is open-ended and if the driver admits to any other wrong-doing, other than the reason for the stop, that's now introduces reasonable suspicion (by the act of admission) to other crimes. Is it illegal? Technically, no. (Unless you go down the entrapment road.) Is it morally wrong? I think most people would agree that it is because the consequences aren't told the individual. (The informed consent argument.)