4 ms·

Even if the DNA was evidence as part of her domestic abuse / rape case, I think there is an argument to be made that using the same evidence for other cases is

by zibby8 4y ago

Even if the DNA was evidence as part of her domestic abuse / rape case, I think there is an argument to be made that using the same evidence for other cases is an unreasonable invasion of privacy (as defined by the 4th amendment). I should be able to have my day in court without giving the government carte blanche to do whatever they want with my personal effects in the future.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
It is interesting because this type of protection doesn't really exist in other areas. If you let a cop into your house for domestic abuse and they see an illegal gun, drugs, ect, they can certainly use that evidence against you. And Yes, this IS a barrier to victims who are also criminals seeking help when they need it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 4y ago
Something you turn over to the government is not private from the government. Expecting otherwise is clearly not "reasonable." A criminal prosecution is not your day in court. A crime victim is not a party to a criminal proceeding. There are maybe a handful of cases where the concept was even contemplated, and it was on a motion to consider a victim's out-of-court admissions as evidence under R. Evid. 801(d)(2). New Mexico v. Vallejos (N.M. App. 2019) ("The State's Motion to Amend, containing Victim's statements, does not fall within the hearsay exemption in Rule 11-801(D)(2) because Victim is not a party opponent."); Ohio v. Ingram (Oh. App. 2016) ("We re-affirm our holding in Browning that an alleged victim who testifies as a witness for the state is not a party-opponent within the meaning of Evid.R. 801(D)(2).")
- zibby8 4y ago
  I think this is too myopic a view. Whether or not one is a party in a court proceeding doesn't mean you don't have "your day in court," which is just a chance for you to share your account of what happened. That account may be an oral recantation or DNA you provide as part of the investigation. In either case, the important part is that you, by offering evidence and testimony, are doing a service to society by helping remove a rapist from the streets, thus making society safer. Why the government thinks its a good idea to reward this service with later invasions of privacy is beyond me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

by zibby8 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

It is interesting because this type of protection doesn't really exist in other areas. If you let a cop into your house for domestic abuse and they see an illegal gun, drugs, ect, they can certainly use that evidence against you. And Yes, this IS a barrier to victims who are also criminals seeking help when they need it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 4y ago

Something you turn over to the government is not private from the government. Expecting otherwise is clearly not "reasonable." A criminal prosecution is not your day in court. A crime victim is not a party to a criminal proceeding. There are maybe a handful of cases where the concept was even contemplated, and it was on a motion to consider a victim's out-of-court admissions as evidence under R. Evid. 801(d)(2). New Mexico v. Vallejos (N.M. App. 2019) ("The State's Motion to Amend, containing Victim's statements, does not fall within the hearsay exemption in Rule 11-801(D)(2) because Victim is not a party opponent."); Ohio v. Ingram (Oh. App. 2016) ("We re-affirm our holding in Browning that an alleged victim who testifies as a witness for the state is not a party-opponent within the meaning of Evid.R. 801(D)(2).")

zibby8 4y ago
I think this is too myopic a view. Whether or not one is a party in a court proceeding doesn't mean you don't have "your day in court," which is just a chance for you to share your account of what happened. That account may be an oral recantation or DNA you provide as part of the investigation. In either case, the important part is that you, by offering evidence and testimony, are doing a service to society by helping remove a rapist from the streets, thus making society safer. Why the government thinks its a good idea to reward this service with later invasions of privacy is beyond me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]