4 ms·
The article doesn't seem to be going that way After a year of using an office, they still can't detect one guy but still detect the previous owner just fine I
by sebstefan 3y ago
The article doesn't seem to be going that way
After a year of using an office, they still can't detect one guy but still detect the previous owner just fine
If you can only detect somebody after multiple months (up to multiple years for bad shedders) of residency, I'd imagine they would leave way easier clues than DNA in an AC unit
- shkkmo 3y agoIs it possible to use to narrow down warrants for DNA samples? Say the police have a sample from a perpetrator and can prove that sample matches samples from a builing AC. This could be part of the evidence used to obtai warrants for the DNA of some or all current/former inhabitants of the building, especially when pairdled with unopposed expert testimony about the reliability of the methodology.
- sokoloff 3y agoI would think (and surely hope) that would fail the probable cause test if attempted to be used for “all current/former inhabitants”. https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/dna-prosecutors-practice-notebook-inventory/preparing-cases-involving-dna/admissibility/court-order-or-search-warrant https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/dna-p...
- shkkmo 3y agoAs your link explains, in some jurisdictions all that is needed to collect biological samples is reasonable suspicion. Geofenced warrents are already a thing. While they may not be constitutional, that hasn't stopped them from being issued and executed. DNA from ACs could also be used to supplement other data to target specifc inhabitants with warrants. E
- sokoloff 3y agoEven if the threshold is only “reasonable suspicion”, that test fails for large numbers of people whose DNA was found in an AC.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shkkmo 3y agoGo read about geofenced warrants to learn how warrants for the data for large numers of people, most of whom obviously can't all be involved. Then get back to me.
- sokoloff 3y agoCell phone location data or automatic number plate reading is far less personal than DNA and is (IMO, rightly) treated differently.
- shkkmo 3y agoAFAIK, location tracking requires probable cause to get a warrant. So the "different treatment" is that the standards for evidence for location data warrants are on average higher. I'm not trying to say anything about the way things should be, but rather to correct you when you falsely reassure people that this won't and can't be used this way.
- squigz 3y agoWell that's a rather horrifying thought...