U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 03, 2013 06:15 AM UTC
33 Comments
Gun control or people control? What is the fight really about?
Well that you tube vid did not post correctly. Must have hit source at wrong time.
If I could edit, I would fix.
I am sure that people are weeping and gnashing their tooths all over Pols land due to not being able to watch a random You Tube clip from Nockers.
We fixed it. Please hit the "Source" button in the editor before pasting Youtube embed code.
Damn Nock, Dan Bongino has a pretty big man bulge too ! Talk about packing heat ! Sorry. What I meant was, SECOND AMENDMENT FREEDOM !
You shouldn't have bothered..
His comment about the president being "self-anointed" pretty much tells you where this ass-clown is coming from…
The usual right-wing twaddle from our resident "No, really, I'm an anarchist" shill?
Apparently, if you're not (s)elected by the Supreme Court, you're "self annoited", regardless of the formal election results. Geez.
Upper echelon of Police Dept's are 'political appointees…'?
So 4 dozen people with weapons that admit they are armed to off government employees, err, I mean tyrants; or thousands walking…
When will the protests by the
teabaggersdefenders of liberty against the totalitarian police state start?That's arrested, not convicted. Wake up
assclownsfellow citizens, it's not Obama that's your enemy.And vis-a-vis broken clocks:
Breyer defected from the "liberal" camp.
Really chilling decision. Arrested still doesn't mean proven guilty of anything,serious or not, and what the heck is more invasive of our privacy than invading our bodies to extract DNA based on mere accusation? What was the majority thinking?
Actually, the majority was thinking that truth matters in the justice system and I commend justice Breyer for voting with the majority. DNA evidence has cleared innocent people, sometimes in prison or even on death row. It has likewise convicted guilty people. A victory for the truth is a victory for justice and while this decision will be regretted by rapists everywhere, I see no reason why innocent people should fear it. Fingerprints can be taken without a conviction. What's the difference with the even more definitive DNA?
Nothing in the decision prohibits anyone, innocent or not, from volunteering to be entered into a DNA database.
The difference between DNA and fingerprinting is that fingerprinting is actually used for identification–e.g., to confirm that an arrestee is not using an alias–and is done immediately after arrest. The DNA test in question was done months after arrest, and was in no way used to determine if the arrestee was who he said he was. It was plainly used for investigative purposes; under prior precedent, that kind of suspicionless seizure of evidence from an arrestee was not permitted.
Same with fingerprints – they are taken and entered into a national database to find other crimes where those prints were found. I'm with Voyager, it's a way of finding if someone is tied to another crime.
That is not the purported purpose of fingerprinting, which is why it has escaped the scruinty being given to DNA testing. The key is that there is a colorable argument that fingerprinting is for "identification," which is permissible. The DNA testing was for crime-solving only, and that has (or at least did, before King) constitutional significance, since suspicionless searches and seizures were understood to be prohibited under the 4th Amendment.
That's the issue. DNA is not the same as fingerprints by a long shot. Going after someone's DNA without their consent should require a warrant. This has nothing to do with people who want their DNA to be tested to prove their innocence.
A fingerprint is taken to run against the national database for ID purposes. In goes the fingerprint, out comes a name, description, and a list of priors. Fingerprints solve unsolved crimes when someone working a cold case runs the print through the database of known prints.
A DNA sample is run against the national database to solve unsolved crimes. If you put a DNA sample into the database, it doesn't come back with an ID, a description, or a list of priors – it only searches against DNA found at unsolved crime scenes.
Completely different results and actions.
Also, in this case the DNA evidence was used to investigate a crime for which the accused was not suspected; the police had no right to search him for that crime (IMHO and that of the minority on the Court). If an officer went in to a house with a warrant seeking evidence of counterfeiting and found trace evidence for a murder, they'd have to phone in for a separate warrant. In this case, the equivalent is that the police took everything in the apartment down to the clothing based on the original warrant and then charged the suspect for an unrelated murder based on what they found in the house. Such a case would be thrown out of court.
And I might add, IMHO if you are never convicted your database entry – fingerprint, DNA, whatever – should be scrubbed. Keep the evidence in the case file if need be, but it comes out of searchable databases.
The minority has it right here. Once you're convicted, you lose the expected right to privacy. But being arrested but not yet convicted you are supposed to receive the full benefit of your Constitutional rights – that's when they're designed to be strongest.
What about running your booking photo against unsolved crimes? With facial recognition, that is going to start happening. Do you think that is ok?
The fundamental thing here is do we combine disparate data to solve crimes? And if so, to what level?
I'm not a fan of police using public cameras to identify for unsolved crimes, if that's what you're getting at. And if the photograph is taken simply to run against unsolved crimes databases, then I think the standard still applies.
Simple distinction: are you doing something to ID the arrested person positively, or are you doing investigation without suspicion?
And I think the same standards should apply with that data if the arrested person is not found guilty: it should be removed from searchable databases.
Ok, how about this. There's a story about someone accused of a crime. Their picture is in the paper. Someone sees the picture and realizes that's the person who raped them. They call the police.
They are found innocent of the arrest that got them in the paper – should the police be able to use the call from the rape victim that was only possible because of the false accusation?
and if you're ok with that, it's the same thing as software matching the face.
Actually, it's not the same. In your example, a single person – a private citizen, even – did the identification. No mass search was run investigating unrelated crimes. And again, motive is a factor; the photo was originally taken to run as verification of ID, and for future ID purposes.
Now if the police simply made a habit of arresting people so that they could take their pictures and post them online or in the papers in mass quantity, then I (and the courts, in all likelihood) would take issue.
There is a distinguishable difference in purpose in the cases you continue to make up and the one involved in this case (and the ones I'm concerned about).
This (the distinction between use for validating ID and as an investigative tool), BTW, is reflected in the majority opinion, which mostly errs IMHO in its mischaracterization of how DNA technology is being applied under the Maryland law in question, in this particular case, and in general given the current state of the databases against which DNA are run.
All fair points. I disagree with you on this but I think your point of view is also legit. A lot of it comes down to is this an expanded search, or is this a more detailed identification.
You view it as a search. I view it as an identification. An identification that can match the ID with the ID of the perpetrator of another crime.
I think its a 'probable cause' issue and actually agree with Scalia. So, someone who gets booked for unpaid tickets (warrent issued) should become a suspect for every unsolved rape in the nation?
To be fair, the law they are upholding does stipulate serious crimes but the principle remains the same. If you need a warrant to search a persons home, how much more invasive is it to search through their genetic make up?
Not at all comparable to photos as simple matters of ID, just as you walking down a public street can be identified without any technology by anyone observing you out in public. Finger prints are also used entirely for purposes of ID.
Your genetic make up is much more analogous to your medical records than to photos or finger prints and therefore should be protected by your basic right to privacy absent a court ordered warrant. Scalia and the three dissenting liberals were right IMHO.
Apologies for the mistake. (See, trolls, how easy that is…looking at you Guppy). Point still stands.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And today in stupid school administration decisions – http://now.msn.com/school-says-deaf-boys-name-sign-looks-too-much-like-a-gun
Where is the ACLU?
Where is the RMGO?
Where is the NRA?
Shooter unloads 150 rounds at rocks in Garden of the Gods, police say
http://gazette.com/shooter-unloads-150-rounds-at-rocks-in-garden-of-the-gods-police-say/article/1501528
That wouldn't have happened if the Gods were armed.
Stupid Libtard Gods.
Under what scenario does this asshat not get held in jail for violation of park ordinances, vandalism, endangering an officer, and about 50 other statutes?
Oh, right – it's Colorado Springs.