Category Archives: Transhuman News

Open 5 3 Maior encontro de fs 2013 (cover DNA acustico by Little Mix)

By: Teens Store BR

See more here:
Open 5 3º Maior encontro de fãs 2013 (cover DNA acustico by Little Mix) - Video

AntiChrist Technology: Mind Control - RFID - XBOX One - Directed DNA Corruption
Reflecting for my brother Tali. This is exactly just a touch of what is in store for us and those who study this intensely (as i do), this video is just bare...

By: Awakened2Truth

Continue reading here:
AntiChrist Technology: Mind Control - RFID - XBOX One - Directed DNA Corruption - Video

Madcats - DNA
Nosso segundo clipe, espero que gostem crditos: little mix.

By: Mad Cats

The rest is here:
Madcats - DNA - Video

Jewel Samad / AFP - Getty Images file

The Supreme Court is weighing whether police have the right to take a DNA sample immediately after an arrest.

By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

The Supreme Court is about to decide what one justice says may be its most important criminal procedure case in decades whether the police have the right to take a DNA sample after they make an arrest.

The question before the justices is whether taking DNA, often with the quick swab of a cheek, is the latter-day equivalent of fingerprinting or violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

This is whats at stake, Justice Samuel Alito said during an oral argument Feb. 26. Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.

The case arises from the arrest of a 26-year-old Maryland man, Alonzo King, in 2009 on a charge of second-degree assault. The police took a swab of DNA from his cheek, ran it through a database and matched it to an unsolved rape from six years earlier.

King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for the 2009 assault. The Maryland Court of Appeals later reversed the rape conviction on the grounds that the DNA sample was an unreasonable search.

The question before the court has vast implications: 28 states and the federal government take DNA swabs from people under arrest before they can be judged innocent or guilty. In Maryland alone, DNA samples during arrests have led to 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions since 2009, Katherine Winfree, the states chief deputy attorney general, told the justices.

Maryland law restricts DNA swabbing to people arrested for certain violent crimes. But Chief Justice John Roberts, worried about the reach of similar laws, wondered during the oral argument why they couldnt be applied to simple traffic stops.

See the rest here:
'Enormous' repercussions as court weighs DNA sampling during arrests

A West Coast RCMP lab that analyzes crime-related DNA samples is slow to deliver results, sometimes impeding court cases, says a new review.

"It took between three to four months for a DNA result from the time a sample was sent to the lab," says the study of the Vancouver lab, ordered by the federal Justice Department.

"Investigators felt that the average turnaround time was simply too long, and that it could be improved upon..."

"One of the reasons provided for why this amount of time was too long was related to pending court dates where results coming after a court date would not be helpful."

The RCMP's forensic labs, which include DNA testing, have come under sharp scrutiny in Parliament in recent years, after two reports from the auditor general and one from a Senate committee found they were poorly-run and too often backlogged.

In May last year, the cash-strapped Mounties announced they were closing half their labs in Regina, Winnipeg and Halifax to trim $3.5 million a year from their budget, consolidating operations in Vancouver, Edmonton and Ottawa.

At the time, a spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the move would make the labs more efficient and reduce backlogs.

Turnaround times for DNA samples across the country rose in the mid-2000s, the auditor general found in a 2007 report, as the labs struggled to keep up with police demands. By 2006, police detectives were waiting almost 114 days on average for results.

The review of the Vancouver lab, which looked at 587 DNA files, found little change in turnaround times an average of 107 days for the period 2006 to 2011. A few files took more than a year.

The researchers also found no clear rules about which DNA samples were shunted to the top of queue, whether by severity of the crime or pending court date.

Read more here:
DNA lab's slow results impeding B.C. court cases

Jewel Samad / AFP - Getty Images file

The Supreme Court is weighing whether police have the right to take a DNA sample immediately after an arrest.

By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

The Supreme Court is about to decide what one justice says may be its most important criminal procedure case in decades whether the police have the right to take a DNA sample after they make an arrest.

The question before the justices is whether taking DNA, often with the quick swab of a cheek, is the latter-day equivalent of fingerprinting or violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

This is whats at stake, Justice Samuel Alito said during an oral argument Feb. 26. Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.

The case arises from the arrest of a 26-year-old Maryland man, Alonzo King, in 2009 on a charge of second-degree assault. The police took a swab of DNA from his cheek, ran it through a database and matched it to an unsolved rape from six years earlier.

King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for the 2009 assault. The Maryland Court of Appeals later reversed the rape conviction on the grounds that the DNA sample was an unreasonable search.

The question before the court has vast implications: 28 states and the federal government take DNA swabs from people under arrest before they can be judged innocent or guilty. In Maryland alone, DNA samples during arrests have led to 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions since 2009, Katherine Winfree, the states chief deputy attorney general, told the justices.

Maryland law restricts DNA swabbing to people arrested for certain violent crimes. But Chief Justice John Roberts, worried about the reach of similar laws, wondered during the oral argument why they couldnt be applied to simple traffic stops.

The rest is here:
High court weighs DNA sampling during arrests