NationStates Jolt Archive

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html

Say the police suspect you of being connected to a crime.

They ask you for a voluntary DNA sample to see if yours matches that found at the scene of the crime, and you say, "No.".

So, later that day, you either chew gum or smoke a cigarette, and discard the gum/cigarette butt on the street.

They've been following you, and a lab technician picks up the "evidence" and they extract your DNA from it.

Do you believe the police have the right to do this without a warrant?

They claim it is "discarded" and thus in the public domain. Cases involving people's trash at the curb (not DNA cases) have upheld the police right to take discarded garbage. Do you think this is the same?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html

The subject matter is abandonded. Your trash can also be searched.

I think that certain members of law enforcement can be sneaky bastards, and deliberately attempt to gain information they could not otherwise (DNA) in this manner...but then again, why should trash be sacrosanct? Don't fucking litter, 'eh?

The legal stance in Canada is clear...once you 'abandon' the material, it's up for grabs. I want that as limited as possible, and so far it has been. You don't 'abandon your car' when you park it for example...so no searching it in the meantime. You don't even 'abandon' the odour of marijuana when you smoke it...though the cases can go either way on whether the odour is probable cause for a further search (generally the case turns on WHERE you are when the odour is detected).

So yes, I do think it's fine actually.

Buh?... why not just arrest them and demand that they give the DNA sample?

Because you don't just get to arrest someone without probable cause (though yes, it is done...it just doesn't tend to stick once the lawyer gets there)...and you certainly don't get to violate their rights and obtain their DNA without a warrant, even if they ARE under arrest. You aren't likely to get a warrant without that probable cause...see where I'm going with this?

Buh?... why not just arrest them and demand that they give the DNA sample?

Because you don't just get to arrest someone without probable cause (though yes, it is done...it just doesn't tend to stick once the lawyer gets there)...and you certainly don't get to violate their rights and obtain their DNA without a warrant, even if they ARE under arrest. You aren't likely to get a warrant without that probable cause...see where I'm going with this?

The UK has a slightly different system, don't need warrents for DNA once you've been arrested anymore than you do for fingerprints. And you can be arrested for pretty much anything, the officer on the scene just has to feel that you deserve to be arrested.

Because you don't just get to arrest someone without probable cause (though yes, it is done...it just doesn't tend to stick once the lawyer gets there)...and you certainly don't get to violate their rights and obtain their DNA without a warrant, even if they ARE under arrest. You aren't likely to get a warrant without that probable cause...see where I'm going with this?

I think what he ment was that if a cop can follow you about all day until you throw a piece of trash away, or camp outside your home until you throw your trash out then needing a warrent to get a DNA sample seems to be a bit pointless as the requirement for a warrent for a direct search does very little to protect people from the police obtaining their DNA unless they happen to have a home incinerator and carry a bag about with them and some sterilising fluid to wipe down anything they touch.

Because you don't just get to arrest someone without probable cause (though yes, it is done...it just doesn't tend to stick once the lawyer gets there)...and you certainly don't get to violate their rights and obtain their DNA without a warrant, even if they ARE under arrest. You aren't likely to get a warrant without that probable cause...see where I'm going with this?Well that was well reasoned. But wait, surely they had some probable cause otherwise they wouldn't have bothered tailing him to pick up his DNA laden spit.

Hmm, I just remembered... can't you be prosecuted for stealing someone's rubbish? I seem to remember some homeless guy was prosecuted for lifting out of date sandwiches out of the bins behind a supermarket.

once I throw it away I no longer have it.....I guess it's probably not my place to say what they do with it.

I kind of agree with that. If you intentionally throw it away then I believe it should be fair game, but I'm not so sure about hair and dead skin coming away from that body.

once I throw it away I no longer have it.....I guess it's probably not my place to say what they do with it.

I think what he ment was that if a cop can follow you about all day until you throw a piece of trash away, or camp outside your home until you throw your trash out then needing a warrent to get a DNA sample seems to be a bit pointless as the requirement for a warrent for a direct search does very little to protect people from the police obtaining their DNA unless they happen to have a home incinerator and carry a bag about with them and some sterilising fluid to wipe down anything they touch.
If the cops are spending the time and energy to tail someone like that, they need to get a fucking clue, and find some other evidence to get them a warrant.

But if you want to be a criminal, learn to not leave your DNA lying around.

I'll try to look up some cases, but I have read a few where the courts (in Canada) have treated law enforcement very harshly when this kind of thing has happened. It's one thing to pick up discarded gum, and another to stalk someone to get some discarded gum. Under the Hunter test, stalking to get DNA would likely fall into the 'unreasonable' category of a s.8 Charter right (to be free of unreasonable search and seizure).

Yeah sure, why not. If I'm a suspect in something and giving them my DNA to differentiate from the DNA they have in evidence will clear my name, why would I refuse?

Hmm, I just remembered... can't you be prosecuted for stealing someone's rubbish? I seem to remember some homeless guy was prosecuted for lifting out of date sandwiches out of the bins behind a supermarket.

Probably depends on the country/state...but I know the situation here is a bit messed up. Generally, trash is considered 'abandoned' and is up for grabs. But supermarkets have successfully argued that they have not abandoned their trash, and that throwing old food out and refusing access to it was of economic benefit to the supermarket itself. A few FoodNotBombs kids have been charged for dumpster diving, and the cases usually centered around the fact that supermarkets generally specifically contract their trash removal out, and have specific policies regaring their continued proprety interest in their trash. So they can't be said to have abandoned the subject matter.

Bastards.

Let's say that the police have a footprint taken from the location of a crime (the victim bled a lot, and there's a bloody shoeprint).

Would it be stalking if the police waited outside your house, and got your footprint off the sidewalk (let's say there was some mud on your shoe)?

And then went to see if it matched?

That's more like a stakeout.

Yeah sure, why not. If I'm a suspect in something and giving them my DNA to differentiate from the DNA they have in evidence will clear my name, why would I refuse?

You should have as much right to willingly cooperate with the police as you should to withhold your DNA. Yes, non-cooperation might garner some suspicion, but then again, how happy would you be about being asked to voluntarily be fingerprinted just for the heck of it?

The argument that, 'if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about' ignores the issue that privacy is a very valid concern in and of itself.

Yeah sure, why not. If I'm a suspect in something and giving them my DNA to differentiate from the DNA they have in evidence will clear my name, why would I refuse?

One reason in the UK is that the government are looking at collating a DNA database of everyone in the country - something with massive potential for misuse by future governments.

They have a tendancy to keep DNA records of innocent people who get screened in this way.

If you feel comfy with the government having such a database and don't think a government would ever misuse such a resource then you should ahve no objection, if not however...

If the cops are spending the time and energy to tail someone like that, they need to get a fucking clue, and find some other evidence to get them a warrant.

But if you want to be a criminal, learn to not leave your DNA lying around.

I'll try to look up some cases, but I have read a few where the courts (in Canada) have treated law enforcement very harshly when this kind of thing has happened. It's one thing to pick up discarded gum, and another to stalk someone to get some discarded gum. Under the [I]Hunter[I] test, stalking to get DNA would likely fall into the 'unreasonable' category of a s.8 Charter right (to be free of unreasonable search and seizure).

Let's say that the police have a footprint taken from the location of a crime (the victim bled a lot, and there's a bloody shoeprint).

Would it be stalking if the police waited outside your house, and got your footprint off the sidewalk (let's say there was some mud on your shoe)?

And then went to see if it matched?

Let's say that the police have a footprint taken from the location of a crime (the victim bled a lot, and there's a bloody shoeprint).

Would it be stalking if the police waited outside your house, and got your footprint off the sidewalk (let's say there was some mud on your shoe)?

And then went to see if it matched?

anything in plain sight is fair game as far as I know, so if the cops show up on my doorstep and I don't let them in (which I wouldn't if they didn't have a warrant) then I think they can still gather evidence from my porch.....etc.

Let's say that the police have a footprint taken from the location of a crime (the victim bled a lot, and there's a bloody shoeprint).

Would it be stalking if the police waited outside your house, and got your footprint off the sidewalk (let's say there was some mud on your shoe)?

And then went to see if it matched?

They don't get to trespass on your property to get the footprint, but once you step out into the street, you're fair game.

The evidence might not be completely conclusive, but in conjunction with other evidence, it might be enough to get a search warrant.

I am definitely in favour of curtailing the ability of police to conduct unreasonable searches, and in Canada, I find a disturbing trend to give a little too much leeway to law enforcement, even when there has been a Charter breach. But on the other hand, I don't support individual privacy becoming so sacrosanct that the police have their hands completely tied in terms of gathering evidence. A good balance needs to be struck, and it's going to go back and forth...hopefully being a bit more tilted towards individual privacy overall.

One reason in the UK is that the government are looking at collating a DNA database of everyone in the country - something with massive potential for misuse by future governments. The UK is a bit messed up (just my opinion of course) because of Parliamentary sovereignty, and the fact that the Bill of Rights is susceptible to statute. So there is no guarantee of civil liberties that supercedes Parliament's right to infringe on those liberties. I would hope, however, that political pressure would be enough to stop such a database from ever coming into being...but I wouldn't hold my breath.

They have a tendancy to keep DNA records of innocent people who get screened in this way.

If you feel comfy with the government having such a database and don't think a government would ever misuse such a resource then you should ahve no objection, if not however...

If you voluntarily supply your DNA to law enforcement, you don't necessarily give them the right to pass on that information to third parties. You don't necessarily NOT give them that right though. There are certain provisions in the various Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts throughout the provinces here that specifically deal with voluntary DNA collection, but the results vary.

Best thing to do? Don't provide a sample. Unless you really feel confident in the state.

anything in plain sight is fair game as far as I know, so if the cops show up on my doorstep and I don't let them in (which I wouldn't if they didn't have a warrant) then I think they can still gather evidence from my porch.....etc.

They're still on private property, so unless they can see something outright illegal they can't.

Oddly enough though most people will let cops without a warrant search their property even if they are doing something illegal. Why is beyond me.

anything in plain sight is fair game as far as I know, so if the cops show up on my doorstep and I don't let them in (which I wouldn't if they didn't have a warrant) then I think they can still gather evidence from my porch.....etc.

Depends...the plain sight doctrine is tempered by laws of trespass, which in turn can be messed with by lawful use of authority and so on and so forth.

Big bag of weed on your porch? Supreme Court (here) has said, fair game if visible from the street.

Knocking on a door and smelling weed? Unreasonable search, leading to the subsequent evidence being excluded.

They're still on private property, so unless they can see something outright illegal they can't.

Oddly enough though most people will let cops without a warrant search their property even if they are doing something illegal. Why is beyond me.

because they are stupid.

I don't let cops in my house ever. If they want to talk to me, they can talk to me on the porch. I don't have anything illegal going on in my house, I just really need them to have a warrant before they come in. I have friends who are police officers, and they still don't come to my house.......not that I really ever let anyone in my house, but that's a different story all together.

Oddly enough though most people will let cops without a warrant search their property even if they are doing something illegal. Why is beyond me.

It's because they don't know their rights. And the cops aren't about to spell those rights out for them.

Once you give your permission for them to enter the premises, you're fucked. They can't go and search your closet though, even with permission to enter the house...but the sneaky bastards will ask you to open things up for them, and then it's fine.

So smarten up. Even if you're completely innocent of anything, I'd be wary about given law enforcement complete, unfettered access to your home.

Depends...the plain sight doctrine is tempered by laws of trespass, which in turn can be messed with by lawful use of authority and so on and so forth.

Big bag of weed on your porch? Supreme Court (here) has said, fair game if visible from the street.

Knocking on a door and smelling weed? Unreasonable search, leading to the subsequent evidence being excluded.

for example if they found dirt in my door mat that matched dirt at the crime scene, could they collect that dirt without a warrant? (assuming the doormat is outside and visible from the street or whatever)

It's because they don't know their rights. And the cops aren't about to spell those rights out for them.

Once you give your permission for them to enter the premises, you're fucked. They can't go and search your closet though, even with permission to enter the house...but the sneaky bastards will ask you to open things up for them, and then it's fine.

So smarten up. Even if you're completely innocent of anything, I'd be wary about given law enforcement complete, unfettered access to your home.

when I was younger* I got pulled over by the cops, they asked me to get out of the car, and open my trunk, I said no. They said that they could make me, and I said no. They said that I had just given them probable cause and that now I had to open my trunk, and I said no. They wrote me a ticket for a broken tail light and left. I really thought my friends were going to die... they were sure that I was going to get us all arrested. (if I had been stupid enough to open my trunk, we would have been so arrested. LOL.......)

*read young and stupid and doing illegal things

for example if they found dirt in my door mat that matched dirt at the crime scene, could they collect that dirt without a warrant? (assuming the doormat is outside and visible from the street or whatever)
Honestly, I don't know enough about Evidence yet to really answer that definitively. From what I know, they can enter your property (like anyone else) with limited rights to be there, but they are trespassing, and unless you give consent for them to be there, they cannot gather evidence just because they are on your property.

If they can not sniff at your door for marijuana, I do not think they can gather dirt from your doormat...then again, reasonable and probable grounds...tough to say.

Hopefully someone else can answer this.

The UK is a bit messed up (just my opinion of course) because of Parliamentary sovereignty, and the fact that the Bill of Rights is susceptible to statute. So there is no guarantee of civil liberties that supercedes Parliament's right to infringe on those liberties. I would hope, however, that political pressure would be enough to stop such a database from ever coming into being...but I wouldn't hold my breath.


If you voluntarily supply your DNA to law enforcement, you don't necessarily give them the right to pass on that information to third parties. You don't necessarily NOT give them that right though. There are certain provisions in the various Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts throughout the provinces here that specifically deal with voluntary DNA collection, but the results vary.

Best thing to do? Don't provide a sample. Unless you really feel confident in the state.

My opinion too.

Particulary given they also want to introduce compulsary ID cards containing a wealth of information about you that have to be carried at all times, as well as plans to put a GPS tracking chip in every car in the country which will be used to actively monitor your movements. Along with a host of other systems for keeping an eye on the population....

I mean - I wouldn't be so suspicious of my government if they didn't act so damn suspiciously.

They claim it is "discarded" and thus in the public domain. Cases involving people's trash at the curb (not DNA cases) have upheld the police right to take discarded garbage. Do you think this is the same?

It depends entirely on how limited it is. For example, if you go to the local 7-11, you have NOT 'discarded' your house. Stuff that you either put in the trash bin or be fined for littering is fair game.

And no, it doesn't mean you can bust into someone's house and root through the kitchen dustbin without a search warrant.

Well that was well reasoned. But wait, surely they had some probable cause otherwise they wouldn't have bothered tailing him to pick up his DNA laden spit.

You might have suspicion but not probable cause. Cops are trained to find people that seem "off". The husband whose wife was just murdered who seems a little too standoffish, a little too strange. The cashier from the store that just got robbed that seems a little too nervous.

They're trained to find these things, and those things make them question, but it's not enough for a warrant.

Hmm, I just remembered... can't you be prosecuted for stealing someone's rubbish? I seem to remember some homeless guy was prosecuted for lifting out of date sandwiches out of the bins behind a supermarket.

Most times it's trespassing. Which is to say the GARBAGE is no longer your property, but the bins sit ON your property. So you have to enter someone's property to take that which they abandoned. In that case the crime is not the theft of garbage, but rather entering the property without permission, IE trespassing.

As per the original question, if you disgard it, you disgard all of it.

for example if they found dirt in my door mat that matched dirt at the crime scene, could they collect that dirt without a warrant? (assuming the doormat is outside and visible from the street or whatever)

no, because, presumably, the door mat is still on your property. If say it's on your front steps it's still on your property and they can't enter that property without permission or take ANYTHING off it without a warrant (or exigent circumstances which doesn't apply here).

So no. IN the case of garbage it's that it's typically take to the curb. As in, you take it OFF your property and to the curb. Once it's off your property and left, it is abandoned. The mat sitting on your front steps, however, is still on your property

no, because, presumably, the door mat is still on your property. If say it's on your front steps it's still on your property and they can't enter that property without permission or take ANYTHING off it without a warrant (or exigent circumstances which doesn't apply here).

So no. IN the case of garbage it's that it's typically take to the curb. As in, you take it OFF your property and to the curb. Once it's off your property and left, it is abandoned. The mat sitting on your front steps, however, is still on your property

thanks for explaining! :) (no, there isn't anything incriminating in my doormat, I was just wondering how the whole thing works.)

(no, there isn't anything incriminating in my doormat

Sure Smunkee....sure.

when I was younger* I got pulled over by the cops, they asked me to get out of the car, and open my trunk, I said no. They said that they could make me, and I said no. They said that I had just given them probable cause and that now I had to open my trunk, and I said no.

Very good call on your part. There's a very famous case (the name of which I can't remember now). Basically the cops entered a commercial bus and said "we are conducting a drug sweep, we would like your cooperation and let us search your bags". They had no warrant, they were asking people if they could search, IE asking the people to volunteer.

One guy said "no" and walked off the bus. The police than said that by refusing to have his bag searched, this gave rise to enough suspicion to search his bag. Which is to say, the fact that he didn't let them look in his bag meant that he might have something in his bag they didn't want him to see, and therefore was suspicious. They of course found drugs.


The logic the cops used was "you would let us search you unless you were doing something wrong, and you're not letting us search you so you're doing something wrong, so now we can search you because we have suspicion."

it went all the way to the US supreme court and the court threw it out. What they said was he had the right to not allow them to look into his bag. Because it was a right, you can not treat the assertion of ones rights as a sign of anything other than the assertion of ones rights. If asserting your rights creates enough suspicion to circumvent the rights, the right is meaningless. If it is such that either you let them, or you refuse, but the refusal creates suspicion that lets them search, then you never have the right to refuse, which renders that right worthless.

So the court said no, can't do this. The assertion of ones rights can never be used against him. He doesn't have to give you a reason for not wanting to let you search his bags, and the fact that he doesn't want you to search his bags can not give rise to any inference that he is doing anything wrong. The fact that he didn't want them to search his bag, or you your trunk, can't form suspicion, and has to give no other reason than "I don't wnat you to"

You might have suspicion but not probable cause. Cops are trained to find people that seem "off". The husband whose wife was just murdered who seems a little too standoffish, a little too strange. The cashier from the store that just got robbed that seems a little too nervous.

They're trained to find these things, and those things make them question, but it's not enough for a warrant.



Most times it's trespassing. Which is to say the GARBAGE is no longer your property, but the bins sit ON your property. So you have to enter someone's property to take that which they abandoned. In that case the crime is not the theft of garbage, but rather entering the property without permission, IE trespassing.

As per the original question, if you disgard it, you disgard all of it.Hmm, the one article I could find after sorting through many useless blogs (I wish google had an option where you could dismiss all blogs from your search results).

It talked about fregans. And that that the only legal objection raised by a supermarket was trespass. But surely if the produce is still on your property then you haven't truly disgarded it yet. And that it is only really truly disgarded when the bin men pick it up, or when you move it off your property...

http://money.guardian.co.uk/savingmoney/story/0,,1092076,00.html

Another (all too common situation) is where the cops will be invited into a school to do random drug searches of lockers. It was quite ridiculously common in my time. The schools argued that the lockers were their property, and there was no expectation of privacy in the contents of the locker. Student would either be required to open the lockers themselves, or once the drug-sniffing dog started up, the school would open the locker.

However, a number of Supreme Court decisions have held that students absolutely have an expectation of privacy in the contents of their locker. It is different when students are made aware of a search, in advance, and when the search is conducted 'on the fly'.

School officials could open the lockers. They could even open your bag, because the Charter only applies to agents of the state (though a student could sue in trespass)...but the police STILL have to get a warrant to search your stuff, even if the actions of the school officials have made the contents of your locker available to plain view.

Wish I'd known that back then...

And that that the only legal objection raised by a supermarket was trespass. But surely if the produce is still on your property then you haven't truly disgarded it yet. And that it is only really truly disgarded when the bin men pick it up, or when you move it off your property...

Not quite, it has to do with intent. Yes, the bin is still on your property BUT by placing it in the trash you have shown manifest intent to discard it. You knew that someone would show up and wisk it away, so you have demonstrated that you no longer wish it to remain in your posession. That's as good as tossing it to the curb. You demonstrated your intent to rid yourself of it.

Now, however, it is abandoned the minute you throw it in the trash BUT if it's still on your property there's a matter of GETTING to it. So in this case, the garbage was abandoned, but still lay on their property. You can't get in trouble for taking their trash, because they have already demonstrated their intent to rid themselves of it, so it's not theirs anymore. However to GET to the garbage you have to cross their property, which makes it tresspass.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html

Say the police suspect you of being connected to a crime.

They ask you for a voluntary DNA sample to see if yours matches that found at the scene of the crime, and you say, "No.".

So, later that day, you either chew gum or smoke a cigarette, and discard the gum/cigarette butt on the street.

They've been following you, and a lab technician picks up the "evidence" and they extract your DNA from it.

Do you believe the police have the right to do this without a warrant?

They claim it is "discarded" and thus in the public domain. Cases involving people's trash at the curb (not DNA cases) have upheld the police right to take discarded garbage. Do you think this is the same?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html


No I don't

Not quite, it has to do with intent. Yes, the bin is still on your property BUT by placing it in the trash you have shown manifest intent to discard it. You knew that someone would show up and wisk it away, so you have demonstrated that you no longer wish it to remain in your posession. That's as good as tossing it to the curb. You demonstrated your intent to rid yourself of it.

Now, however, it is abandoned the minute you throw it in the trash BUT if it's still on your property there's a matter of GETTING to it. So in this case, the garbage was abandoned, but still lay on their property. You can't get in trouble for taking their trash, because they have already demonstrated their intent to rid themselves of it, so it's not theirs anymore. However to GET to the garbage you have to cross their property, which makes it tresspass.Aren't you contractdicting yourself? I thought you said the opposite to Smunk. In that you had to take it off your property for it to be considered abandoned.

I know I store stuff in bin bags, and if you were storing something outside, you might want to out the bad in a metal container to stop animals breaking open the bag...

Not quite, it has to do with intent. Yes, the bin is still on your property BUT by placing it in the trash you have shown manifest intent to discard it. You knew that someone would show up and wisk it away, so you have demonstrated that you no longer wish it to remain in your posession. That's as good as tossing it to the curb. You demonstrated your intent to rid yourself of it.

Could it not be argued that you haven't shown an intent to disgard but an intent to tranfer ownership to the council who pick up the garbage as your per of that contract you hold with them?

One reason in the UK is that the government are looking at collating a DNA database of everyone in the country - something with massive potential for misuse by future governments.

They have a tendancy to keep DNA records of innocent people who get screened in this way.

If you feel comfy with the government having such a database and don't think a government would ever misuse such a resource then you should ahve no objection, if not however...

Meh. The government can have my DNA if they want it, whether I like it or not. I don't mind, though. Unless they start cloning me without my permission, I honestly don't see what they could do with such a thing other than make sure, through a digital check in a police database, that I'm not a murderer.

No I don't

That kind of answer, with no further explanation, is what the poll is for.

When you post beyond that, we sort of expect you'll expand on the issue.

That kind of answer, with no further explanation, is what the poll is for.

When you post beyond that, we sort of expect you'll expand on the issue.

This is most likely a Kormanthor puppet you're talking to. Reason and explanation has no quarter within his mind.

Aren't you contractdicting yourself? I thought you said the opposite to Smunk. In that you had to take it off your property for it to be considered abandoned.

I know I store stuff in bin bags, and if you were storing something outside, you might want to out the bad in a metal container to stop animals breaking open the bag...

No contradiction. There are two issues here:

1) You intend to abandon your trash.
2) No one can trespass on your property.

Assuming your trash is abandoned, it's still on your property, and no one can just go take it. That would be trespassing.

Once it's off your property, it's fair game, because there is no trespass involved.

No contradiction. There are two issues here:

1) You intend to abandon your trash.
2) No one can trespass on your property.

Assuming your trash is abandoned, it's still on your property, and no one can just go take it. That would be trespassing.

Once it's off your property, it's fair game, because there is no trespass involved.What happens if I use the argument that I frequently accidentally put stuff in the bin? So I don't intend to abandon any of my trash until I've had a good few days to realise if anything has gone missing. So only was I take the bags off my property have I truly had the intention to abandon my property and followed through with that intention.

Could it not be argued that you haven't shown an intent to disgard but an intent to tranfer ownership to the council who pick up the garbage as your per of that contract you hold with them?

It's discard, damnit! :D

Interesting concept...but you'd have to show an intention to exercise control over your trash and demonstrate a tranfer of property rights over the trash to the contracted picker-uppers (to use a highly legal term hahahahhaaah). I think you'd be unable to show an intention to exercise control once that trash was off your property.

The way it CAN work, is how I described in the case of some supermarkets. The trash never leaves the property, and there is a contractual transfer of property rights once the trash is picked up.

However, once that trash becomes the property of the contractor, what is done with it is completely up to that contractor. If they 'abandon' the subject matter in some way, or allow access to it, it's still fair game.

It's discard, damnit! :D

Interesting concept...but you'd have to show an intention to exercise control over your trash and demonstrate a tranfer of property rights over the trash to the contracted picker-uppers (to use a highly legal term hahahahhaaah). I think you'd be unable to show an intention to exercise control once that trash was off your property.

The way it CAN work, is how I described in the case of some supermarkets. The trash never leaves the property, and there is a contractual transfer of property rights once the trash is picked up.

However, once that trash becomes the property of the contractor, what is done with it is completely up to that contractor. If they 'abandon' the subject matter in some way, or allow access to it, it's still fair game.What about recycling? Because then there is a contract between you and the local council and you have an expectation of what the council will do once they pick up the recycling - recycle it, and not abandon it.

So if you truly want you trash to be safe, then recycle more.

It's discard, damnit! :D

Interesting concept...but you'd have to show an intention to exercise control over your trash and demonstrate a tranfer of property rights over the trash to the contracted picker-uppers (to use a highly legal term hahahahhaaah). I think you'd be unable to show an intention to exercise control once that trash was off your property.

The way it CAN work, is how I described in the case of some supermarkets. The trash never leaves the property, and there is a contractual transfer of property rights once the trash is picked up.

However, once that trash becomes the property of the contractor, what is done with it is completely up to that contractor. If they 'abandon' the subject matter in some way, or allow access to it, it's still fair game.

Fair enough but in the UK part of the deal you have with the council is that you must leave the wheelie-bin (yes that is their real name) on the curb in front of your house or it won't be picked up so by obeying the terms of the contract you hold with one part of the government you would be opening yourself to a load of crap from another part.

PS In my defence, I'm in work so don't have my spell checkers and I can't spell worth a damn :D

Interesting concept...but you'd have to show an intention to exercise control over your trash and demonstrate a tranfer of property rights over the trash to the contracted picker-uppers (to use a highly legal term hahahahhaaah). I think you'd be unable to show an intention to exercise control once that trash was off your property.
I think it would be pretty easy to show that you intended the trash to be disposed of or recycled rather than searched - given that disposal or recycling is what happens to 99.9999% of the trash that is put out for the council to pick up.

What happens if I use the argument that I frequently accidentally put stuff in the bin? So I don't intend to abandon any of my trash until I've had a good few days to realise if anything has gone missing. So only was I take the bags off my property have I truly had the intention to abandon my property and followed through with that intention.
Aha! Now you're getting into issues of abandonment versus the law of finding.

It's one thing to drop your wallet on your lawn. You still exercise possessory rights over that wallet, even if you don't know it's there. Ditto for things that are on your property that you don't even know exist...for example, a chest of gold buried in your back yard. You don't know it's there...but that doesn't mean someone can dig it up and claim it.

It's another to abandon your trash. You still have a claim on jewlery you accidentally toss out, that's a property right, and you can exercise it in a reasonable amount of time (if you can find the finder at all, or if they find you). Three years down the road, you don't have much of a claim if you suddenly find those jewels. But that is not at all the same as evidence being found in your trash. Intentional abandonment or not, your property claims on that evidence is irrelevant. Sure, you might be able to get the cops to give it back to you after...but they aren't arguing property rights with you so much as they are arguing that they have the right to use it for evidentiary purposes.

I think it would be pretty easy to show that you intended the trash to be disposed of or recycled rather than searched - given that disposal or recycling is what happens to 99.9999% of the trash that is put out for the council to pick up.

It is an interesting hypothetical if you look at it from a contractual perspective. I don't think it's a particularly effective argument here, given that I don't know of a single case where that's been accepted in terms of law enforcement gathering evidence. In terms of property rights against bottle pickers etc...well, that's more likely. I'll have to think about this a bit more and get back to it when I have more time.

Aren't you contractdicting yourself? I thought you said the opposite to Smunk. In that you had to take it off your property for it to be considered abandoned.

No, no contradiction. Smunk asked that if the police knew there was a kind of dirt on a crime scene, can they go and look at her door mat to see if the dirt is on it, considering the mat is "outside" her home.

I said no, because even though it's outside her home, it's still on her property line, and the police can't go into her property line without her permission without a warrant/exigent circumstances. They can't cross that line just because they feel like it and examin her mat.

This is TOTALLY unrelated to the question of whether or not the mat has been "abandoned". In this case it hasn't, because she has shown no manifest intent to do so. So the police can't come on to her property and take her mat for two reasons:

1) the mat's on her property, and they can't enter that property
2) the mat is, itself, her property, and they can't take it.

I never got to #2 because #1 anwered the question. My fault I suppose for not clarifying. There's a maxim in law that you take the argument no further than you HAVE to. If the question is "can the police do this", once you find the answer is "no" you stop. No need for further analysis because we have already answered the question.

I said no, they can't, because it's on her property and the police can't enter her property. I can also go on and say IN ADDITION TO THIS, it's also not disgarded, so they can't touch it ANYWAY (there are some plain sight exceptions to this but let's not go there).

So they can't take it for either of those two reasons.

NOW, if it weren't a mat, but say a bag of garbage, this she has manifested the intent to disgard. Now #2 doesn't apply, not her property anymore. But, however, if that garbage is sitting on her propertly ine, they STILL can't get to it because #1 applies.

So in other words, if the item is on your property, whether you have disgarded it or not, the police can't take it without a warrant because #1 applies.

IN ADDITION if you have NOT disgarded it, #2 applies as well.

Police can't take property you own. They also can not enter your real property lines without permission. So what stops them from taking smunk's mat? #1 (can't enter the premises without permission) and #2 (it's her property).

Had she disgarded that mat, and thrown it away, but the garbage was still on her property, #1 would still apply but #2 would not. This is why people who get arrested for stealing garbage out of dumpsters are charged with trespassing (crossing on to property to get to the dumpster) and not theft, since the contents had been disgarded.

I know I store stuff in bin bags, and if you were storing something outside, you might want to out the bad in a metal container to stop animals breaking open the bag...

In which case, you showed no manifest intent to disgard it, merely store it.

I think it would be pretty easy to show that you intended the trash to be disposed of or recycled rather than searched - given that disposal or recycling is what happens to 99.9999% of the trash that is put out for the council to pick up.

even if that were true, you would show an intent to tranfer, not an intent to disgard, IE instead of it now being nobody's property, you transfered it to the municipality.

So you lose the right to complain about. The recycling agency might, because theoretically it's their property now, but do you think they will?

What happens if I use the argument that I frequently accidentally put stuff in the bin? So I don't intend to abandon any of my trash until I've had a good few days to realise if anything has gone missing. So only was I take the bags off my property have I truly had the intention to abandon my property and followed through with that intention.

You could only argue that you had not shown manifest intent to disgard the stuff you accidentally put in it. In fact, even when you take the bags off your property you have not shown intent to disgard the stuff you accidentally put in it. Once you knowingly and willfully place something in the garbage you have demonstrated your intent to disgard it, thus ridding yourself of your property rights to it.

If you did not knowingly and willfully place it there, you still retain those rights. At best you can argue you still have the rights only to the things you didn't mean to throw out.

Woah, all this is pretty much flowing above my head. I understand, but I'm not sure I want to understand it...

You and Neesika must be on a law course.

But yes, you both seem to have your arguments sorted out pretty well.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html

Say the police suspect you of being connected to a crime.

They ask you for a voluntary DNA sample to see if yours matches that found at the scene of the crime, and you say, "No.".

So, later that day, you either chew gum or smoke a cigarette, and discard the gum/cigarette butt on the street.

They've been following you, and a lab technician picks up the "evidence" and they extract your DNA from it.

Do you believe the police have the right to do this without a warrant?

They claim it is "discarded" and thus in the public domain. Cases involving people's trash at the curb (not DNA cases) have upheld the police right to take discarded garbage. Do you think this is the same?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html


It is not the same, although I'm sure that who you are will be the deciding factor.

Woah, all this is pretty much flowing above my head. I understand, but I'm not sure I want to understand it...

You and Neesika must be on a law course.

She is, she's a law student. I'm not on that course. I ran that course already. I am an attorney.

OK, lemme explain through a few hypotheticals. THe problem is there are two different definition's of "property". First is land property, the borders of my home, for example. This is called "real property" or "lease property" depending.

The other type of property is "chattel property" property that is "stuff". For example, my land is real property. A car sitting on that land is chattle property. A house on the land is both, because it is both a physical thing, and a space. Which is to say the actual physical materials of the house render it a thing, a chattle property. However the house itself is an enclosure, and the space within that enclosure is real property.

So I will use those terms, "real property" to mean the space of an area, and chattel property to detail the actual "things".

Now, police can not use evidence obtained illegally. They can obtain evidence illegally through two forms, tresspass and theft (there are other ways such as land tapping, illegal photographing/recording, but in this instance I'm refering to evidence as real, tangible evidence). Tresspass is unlawfully entry on to real property, entering a place you have no right to be in. Theft is the unlawful taking of chattel property, taking something you have no right to take. Evidence can be gained unlawfully thus either through theft, or tresspass, or both. Evidence gained unlawfully is no good, refered to as "fruit of the poisonous tree". Generally means, any evidence gained as a result of a violation of the law is unallowed.

So, without further adeu, the hypotheticals:

Lets do the setup. My wife is murdered. I am acting suspicious. The police don't have enough to get a warrant, but they suspect me.

Hypo #1: evidence disallowed through both tresspass and theft

While I'm at work, the police break into my home. While there they go through my drawers. In a drawer they find: blood stained clothing. Photographs of me killing my wife and then posing with her corpse, a videotape recording me killing my wife and a letter entitled "yes I killed her, and here's how I did it" which is dated, signed, and notarized. They take all this

In this example the evidence is no good for both reasons. First you entered my property illegally thus anything you find is gone through that illegal act. Second you took my property without any rights to do so (no warrant etc) so that's also theft. You entered my real property illegally, and took my chattle property illegally

Hypo #2: Evidence disallowed through theft

Now, instead of you breaking into my house, I invite you in, I tell you you can come in. Then while we're hanging around, I go to the bathroom. While I'm gone you rifle through my drawers and find that evidence. Barred due to theft. You were in my property legally, I invited you in, but you took stuff you had no right to take, theft

Hypo #3: evidence disallowed through tresspass

Now, instead of you finding the stuff at home, instead I gather it all up and throw it in a big trashbag. I leave that trashbag out on my front steps. The police walk across my lawn, pick it up. In this case, I've thrown it away, manifested an intent to rid myself of it. I don't own it anymore, I've given away my rights to it. However, the police STILL can't use it because they entered my real property illegally, thus gained through trespass. It's not theft because I've thrown it away, but the garbage is still on my real property, and in crossing into my real property to get it, you comitted a crime of tresspass, and thus it's barred.

Hypo #4: wherein I am screwed

Now instead of leaving the bag on my front steps, I drop it on the curb. Now I've manifested my intent to get rid of it, so it's not mine AND it's no longer on my property. Police take it, I'm sunk. Not theft because it's not mine anymore, and not tresspass because it wasn't on my property.

She is, she's a law student. I'm not on that course. I ran that course already. I am an attorney.It's good to know you attorneys know your shit. c.c;

She is, she's a law student. I'm not on that course. I ran that course already. I am an attorney.

Yes, Arthais is the master here...I'm just a lowly, subservient student :p

It is not the same, although I'm sure that who you are will be the deciding factor.

That's two large quotes and totally pointless comments FTW:rolleyes:

Here's a question. Suppose the police want a hair fiber sample, and I refuse to give it. The next day, I go in for a haircut. Can they get my hair off the droppings on the ground? Can they do it if the salon gives permission? Does my hair belong to the salon once it is cut?

Interestingly enough, while it wasn't the police, there was a case in which a barber was selling someone's hair without his permission and was sued for it. I believe he lost. Of course, selling it and willingly giving it to the police might be treated differently.

So the question is really whether ownership of the hair is transferred to the salon once you 'abandon' it there. Ditto with fingernails etc.

Odd, but I would say yes, if they wished to claim it, in which case, they would be able to turn it over to the police.

Creepy though.

So the question is really whether ownership of the hair is transferred to the salon once you 'abandon' it there. Ditto with fingernails etc.

Odd, but I would say yes, if they wished to claim it, in which case, they would be able to turn it over to the police.

Creepy though.

yes. the salon (private business) owns your hair. they could sell. or throw it away.

now if the police comes in and asks them for the hair, and the salon gives it to them, then it's perfectly legal.

by throwing it away, it then becomes public domain.

Usually the Rule of thumb is, if it's on private property or you own the semi/permament fixture, then it's yours. that's why leaving a car is not considered abandoment, and abandoning your car is a crime in most areas. same with trash cans. If pressed, it can be said that the can is still yours (since it's not thrown away) and thus the items in the can is still yours. but once it gets tossed into the garbage trucks...

and if you don't own the trash receptical...



now I wonder how many people who don't believe in private ownership will hid behind their privately own property to escape the law...

yes. the salon (private business) owns your hair. they could sell. or throw it away.

by throwing it away, it then becomes public domain.

Don't confuse the term public domain...it doesn't apply in this case. Public domain means that no one can claim exclusive ownership, and that is not the case here. If someone claimed your hair, no one else would be able to just take it from them. They would have exclusive ownership in rem (against the whole world), which is totally inconsistent with property in the public domain.

yes. the salon (private business) owns your hair. they could sell. or throw it away.

Do they? There was a case recently - one of the early famous astronauts, although I can't remember which one offhand - whose barber sold his hair to a person who collects the hair of famous people. He sued and won, IIRC. In other words, it was found that the barber did not have the right to sell his hair.

Do they? There was a case recently - one of the early famous astronauts, although I can't remember which one offhand - whose barber sold his hair to a person who collects the hair of famous people. He sued and won, IIRC. In other words, it was found that the barber did not have the right to sell his hair.

I'd like to see how that case was argued. Because I could see there being privacy issues involved, and there might be some sort of statutory regulation in regards to things like this.

Overall though, I can't see how in the common law you could claim ownership of hair that you 'abandoned'.

Unless you argued that you 'misplaced' it.

I'd like to see how that case was argued. Because I could see there being privacy issues involved, and there might be some sort of statutory regulation in regards to things like this.

Overall though, I can't see how in the common law you could claim ownership of hair that you 'abandoned'.

Unless you argued that you 'misplaced' it.

I'll see if I can find the articles on it. I think it had to do with a matter of reasonable expectation and the fact that another person did not have the right to profit off of his name without his consent.

This is why I was thinking it might be perfectly legal for a barber or salon to give the hair to the police if asked, but not necessarily to sell it. They don't have the right to profit off of your hair, but I see no legal argument against them giving it to the police.

Don't confuse the term public domain...it doesn't apply in this case. Public domain means that no one can claim exclusive ownership, and that is not the case here. If someone claimed your hair, no one else would be able to just take it from them. They would have exclusive ownership in rem (against the whole world), which is totally inconsistent with property in the public domain.true, I meant Public Domain as it was up for grabs.

Do they? There was a case recently - one of the early famous astronauts, although I can't remember which one offhand - whose barber sold his hair to a person who collects the hair of famous people. He sued and won, IIRC. In other words, it was found that the barber did not have the right to sell his hair.intersting... who's the astronaut?

intersting... who's the astronaut?

It took me a while to remember. It was Neil Armstrong. But looking back for articles, all I can find is the news articles about him being angry. I can't find anything actually detailing a lawsuit.

I'll see if I can find the articles on it. I think it had to do with a matter of reasonable expectation and the fact that another person did not have the right to profit off of his name without his consent. Yes, that actually makes sense. There is a property right in personality...you don't get to take a picture of Madonna and use it to sell your beaded-bracelets. You could, however, sell a book all about how Madonna wears beaded-bracelets, with photos to prove it.

This is why I was thinking it might be perfectly legal for a barber or salon to give the hair to the police if asked, but not necessarily to sell it. They don't have the right to profit off of your hair, but I see no legal argument against them giving it to the police.

Makes sense, because in the above case, the issue turns on profiting from the celebrity of someone else (which is an actual property right), not necessarily on the proprietorial issue of whose hair it actually is now.

But hmm. Selling a famous athlete's soiled jersey that they tossed out in the trash....seems to me that would be perfectly allowable. So I could see this going either way, depending on the fact pattern.

I'll see if I can find the articles on it. I think it had to do with a matter of reasonable expectation and the fact that another person did not have the right to profit off of his name without his consent.

This is why I was thinking it might be perfectly legal for a barber or salon to give the hair to the police if asked, but not necessarily to sell it. They don't have the right to profit off of your hair, but I see no legal argument against them giving it to the police.

I found this...
Astronaunt threatens to sue Barber (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/tree/browse_frm/month/2005-06/7e84d76b2d0511f0?rnum=221&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.gossip.celebrities%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2005-06%3F)

Armstrong Threatens to Sue Ohio Barber


By TERRY KINNEY, Associated Press Writer


Apollo moon mission astronaut Neil Armstrong has threatened to sue a
barbershop owner who collected Armstrong's hair after a trim and sold it for
$3,000.


Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, used to go to Marx's Barber
Shop in Lebanon about once a month for a cut. That stopped when he learned
that owner Marx Sizemore had collected his hair clippings from the floor and
sold them in May 2004 to a collector.


"I didn't deny it or anything," Sizemore said. "I told him I did it."


Sizemore said Armstrong asked him to try to retrieve the hair, but the buyer
did not want to give it back.


"I called Neil back and told him that," Sizemore said. "Then I got this
letter from his lawyer."


The letter contends that the sale violated an Ohio law designed to protect
the rights of famous people. It threatens legal action if Sizemore does not
return the hair or contribute his profit to charity and asks Sizemore to pay
Armstrong's legal expenses.


Sizemore, who said he already spent most of the $3,000 on bills, told the
lawyer who sent the letter, Ross Wales of Cincinnati, that he will not pay.
Wales did not return a call seeking comment.


Sizemore said he sold the hair to an agent for John Reznikoff, a Westport,
Conn., collector listed by Guinness World Records as having the largest
collection of hair from historical celebrities. The collection, insured for
$1 million, includes hair from Abraham Lincoln, Marilyn Monroe, Albert
Einstein and Napoleon.


Armstrong commanded NASA's Apollo 11 mission to the moon in 1969. He left
the space program in 1971 to teach aeronautical engineering at the
University of Cincinnati. He seldom appears at public functions or grants
interviews.

Threatened, but did the lawsuit take place?

Makes sense, because in the above case, the issue turns on profiting from the celebrity of someone else (which is an actual property right), not necessarily on the proprietorial issue of whose hair it actually is now.

But hmm. Selling a famous athlete's soiled jersey that they tossed out in the trash....seems to me that would be perfectly allowable. So I could see this going either way, depending on the fact pattern.

also, the lawsuit was to have the money turned over to charity. and it was more of a violation of Ohio's law, and not privacy issue.

also, the lawsuit was to have the money turned over to charity. and it was more of a violation of Ohio's law, and not privacy issue.

What was the law? Because I wouldn't assume it had nothing to do with privacy.

What was the law? Because I wouldn't assume it had nothing to do with privacy.

protecting the rights of FAMOUS PEOPLE according to the article (4th from the bottom paragraph.) if it was a privacy issue, then more people would be up in arms about a barber profitting off of parts of their bodies. ;)

protecting the rights of FAMOUS PEOPLE according to the article (4th from the bottom paragraph.) if it was a privacy issue, then more people would be up in arms about a barber profitting off of parts of their bodies. ;)

How often does a barber do something like this for your average customer, though? I'd be rather surprised to find out that my stylist were selling my hair. Who would take a bunch of clippings of my hair unless someone was stalking me? And, if someone was stalking me, should it be legal for my hairdresser to encourage them?

Should we all be protected from having a person profit off of our bodies? Or only famous people? Or no one at all?

How often does a barber do something like this for your average customer, though? I'd be rather surprised to find out that my stylist were selling my hair. Who would take a bunch of clippings of my hair unless someone was stalking me? And, if someone was stalking me, should it be legal for my hairdresser to encourage them?

Should we all be protected from having a person profit off of our bodies? Or only famous people? Or no one at all?
I believe, before nylon and other synthetics was used, barbers would sell their clippings to make wigs, toupees and hair for dolls.

and yes, I agree, all people should be protected equally not just famous people. then again, maybe they are if the lawsuit didn't go through...

I believe, before nylon and other synthetics was used, barbers would sell their clippings to make wigs, toupees and hair for dolls.

and yes, I agree, all people should be protected equally not just famous people. then again, maybe they are if the lawsuit didn't go through...

Hmmm. I was under the impression that the person whose hair was being used for such purposes had to consent to it. For instance, I know of a program where I could donate my hair to be used in wigs for children, but (as I understand it), my stylist could not donate my hair without my consent (even if I was getting enough cut off.)

Hmmm. I was under the impression that the person whose hair was being used for such purposes had to consent to it. For instance, I know of a program where I could donate my hair to be used in wigs for children, but (as I understand it), my stylist could not donate my hair without my consent (even if I was getting enough cut off.dunno. It just might be up to the individual business. after all, the barber didn't have to tell Neil Armstrong what he did.

Buh?... why not just arrest them and demand that they give the DNA sample?

Because one of the first things that the people who founded this country did was to establish the right not to incriminate oneself.

If you leave incriminating evidence all over the place, well then that's a different batter.

Any policemen who does so should be trailed for the rest of his life, his phones tapped, and his clothes overbleached.

Any policemen who does so should be trailed for the rest of his life, his phones tapped, and his clothes overbleached.

ah, so you are for illegal wiretappings... *nods* :D

Do you believe the police have the right to do this without a warrant?
Without a warrant? No.

ah, so you are for illegal wiretappings... *nods* :D

No, legal wiretappings. We'd get a court order. We'd even pass legislation that allows us to add bleach to their laundry.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html

Say the police suspect you of being connected to a crime.

They ask you for a voluntary DNA sample to see if yours matches that found at the scene of the crime, and you say, "No.".

So, later that day, you either chew gum or smoke a cigarette, and discard the gum/cigarette butt on the street.

They've been following you, and a lab technician picks up the "evidence" and they extract your DNA from it.

Do you believe the police have the right to do this without a warrant?

They claim it is "discarded" and thus in the public domain. Cases involving people's trash at the curb (not DNA cases) have upheld the police right to take discarded garbage. Do you think this is the same?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070318/D8NU9GB80.html

Only people who should fear this have something to hide. I'd give my DNA sample anyway, cause i didn't do anything. Besides, saying "No." already warrants more suspision.

Without a warrant? No.

Why in the world would police need a warrant to pick up something that someone threw away?

Why in the world would police need a warrant to pick up something that someone threw away?Because they may have thrown it into their own private trash dumpster. If the object is thrown away in the public, then the person has no claim to privacy in that regard. If someone want's to make sure that their DNA or fingerprints aren't taken from objects they discard, they can hold on to them until they get home. I'm still split minds as to whether you can expressly state that something you throw away can't be used for such purposes. Since the act of discarding it is interpreted as "I don't care what happens to it", a verbal refutation of that can void that interpretation.

Why in the world would police need a warrant to pick up something that someone threw away?
To be honest, I didn't read the whole article - I thought it meant trash on one's property. In which case, yes, I would demand that they had a warrant.

Only people who should fear this have something to hide. I'd give my DNA sample anyway, cause i didn't do anything. Besides, saying "No." already warrants more suspision.

You're wrong. Already dealt with, post 33. Asserting your rights can not be treated as a suspicious act.

To be honest, I didn't read the whole article - I thought it meant trash on one's property. In which case, yes, I would demand that they had a warrant.

The OP in question was about things discarded in public. I agree that if it's on ones property you need a warrant. If it's discarded in public, no, you don't, and you shouldn't.

Only people who should fear this have something to hide. I'd give my DNA sample anyway, cause i didn't do anything. Besides, saying "No." already warrants more suspision.

suspicion that I know my rights?

suspicion that I know my rights?

as I said, check post 33. Assertion of ones rights can not be viewed as a suspicious activity.

Only people who should fear this have something to hide. I'd give my DNA sample anyway, cause i didn't do anything. Besides, saying "No." already warrants more suspision.

I disagree with that. but, I too would volunteer my DNA for storage. if something happened to me, I definately don't want to rely on Dental Records for identification.

as I said, check post 33. Assertion of ones rights can not be viewed as a suspicious activity.

:) I used to want to be a lawyer you know?

I don't have a problem with the idea of the police doing this. I'm not certain how they could necessarily be certain that the wad of gum in the public bag was mine, but that's not the issue here.

I don't have a problem with the idea of the police doing this. I'm not certain how they could necessarily be certain that the wad of gum in the public bag was mine, but that's not the issue here.

They watch you throw it out. Now I know what you're saying, prove it's my gum. They don't have to.

If they see you throw a piece of gum in a trash can, and they find a piece of gum in that trashcan that matches DNA on a crime scene, this may not be enough for a court.

However, if they saw you throw out a piece of gum, and a piece of gum in that trash can has DNA from a crimescene, well guess what? Now they have a warrant. NOW you will be giving them your DNA.

Maybe/No

They watch you throw it out. Now I know what you're saying, prove it's my gum. They don't have to.

If they see you throw a piece of gum in a trash can, and they find a piece of gum in that trashcan that matches DNA on a crime scene, this may not be enough for a court.

However, if they saw you throw out a piece of gum, and a piece of gum in that trash can has DNA from a crimescene, well guess what? Now they have a warrant. NOW you will be giving them your DNA.Really? That's interesting. Good to know, thanks. :)

*wonders how many paranoid people are going to start incinerating their trash at home*