T.M. Cullen wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 6:02am:


I followed the link provided and found it to be an interesting thread Mr. Cullen. 

The answer to your question is pretty simple, I’m surprised you didn’t find it.  

Go look up a copy of our constitution, (That's U.S. Constitution, just in case you aren’t a citizen)  Skip over the main part, even though it’s good reading when you have time, and go to the end where they have placed changes to the constitution called “AMENDMENTS” . They have been numbered for your convenience. Go down to number 4 and mark it for later reading. 

Read number 5 carefully “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”   

I have highlighted the portion that answers your question concerning compelled polygraph. The U.S Supreme Court has determined that “being a witness against himself”  refers to communicative behavior that reveals the contents of a person's mind. Because giving DNA samples does not require a person to convey, through communication, the contents of their mind, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination isn't pertinent. Though there may compulsion and self-incrimination, there is no testimony.  

Since Polygraph examinations require verbal responses, during the pre-test interview and testing process that are potentially incriminating, the Fifth Amendment does apply. 

Now go back and read the Fourth Amendment.  That is the one that applies to DNA samples and similar items of PHYSICAL Evidence. 

The answer to your question is that you are arguing Constitutional Apples and Oranges and your analogy is defective.  

If I may borrow one of your more expressive and revealing statements:
Hmmmm, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh.                                                                                                                                         Hmmmm, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh.  


Sancho Panza

modified to correct spelling error

Notguilty1
If that is what he meant then why did he ask the question?

Your response either intimates that Mr. Cullen of an is unable to say or ask what he means or provides evidence of your inability to understand even a simple question like "If this is true, and if the polygraph  scientifically proven to be highly accurate (like DNA testing), then why can't a person be charged with a crime be forced to take a polygraph?"

If you wish to engage in a debate on whether or not the courts always use good common sense in their decision making process perhaps you would like to explain how a DNA sample should cease to be admissable based on how it was obtained even if the method of seizure does not change the physical properties of the sample.   

Based on what I have read in your previous posts, I don't think your input in support of  Mr. Cullen could be classified as "help".

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 1:18am:

DNA evidence (like all other evidence) can be excluded if it is obtained via a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  So can any other evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure.  It is called the Exclusionary Rule and the precedent is Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

The validity of the sample is not what is called into question if/when it is ruled inadmissable; what is ruled invalid is the method by which it was obtained.

The idea is that the state is required to play by the rules, so they don't get to admit evidence obtained unless it was obtained within the rules.  There is no lack of common sense in the exclusionary rule.  It even provides an exception for any evidence that would have inevitably been discovered anyway.

Quote:


Yet a polygrapher recently advised a person whose spouse is suspected of infidelity that:

"...There is no reason why a properly conducted [polygraph] exam would not give you an accurate opinion as to her truthfulness."

Or really?  That is darn right pathological!   I'd just like to know if they (polygraphers) believe their own bullshit!


TC

Sergeant1107 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 6:10am:


Your comment on the substance of the exclusionary rule is pretty accurate, however I tend to disagree that it is a "common sense" rule. Basically the exclusionary rule provides a sanction, short of criminal prosecution,  for police mis-conduct. Under the exclusionary rule, If you as a Police Officer punch a murder suspect in the nose in order to obtain a blood sample, the DNA from that sample in inadmissable. However, if Mr. Cullen were to read about the case in the paper that identifies your suspect as a "person of interest",punches your suspect in the nose and then turns the blood sample over to you for analysis, The DNA from that sample is perfectly admissable providing the defense is unable to establish a prior relationship between you and Mr. Cullen. The only sanction that Mr. Cullen may face is a misdemeanor  prosecution for assault and battery, and your suspect becomes eligible for a state sponsored dirt nap,  while in the first case your murder suspect goes free to kill again. That  A & B prosecution isn't very likely when Mr. Cullen has just handed the D.A. the murderers head on a silver platter. 

Under English Law there are common sense sanctions against police officers who violate suspect's rights, but the exclusionary rule does not exist as we know it in the good ol USA. While I agree that police mis-conduct should be punished, there is nothing "Common Sense" about turning a murderer loose because of the manner in which his DNA is collected. 

One might argue that a confession beaten out of a suspect should be excluded because of the possibility of a false confession while under torture  changing the content and character of the evidence, but where a DNA sample is involved no such argument is viable.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 1:18am:



Hey SANCHO 
what you have read in my previous posts is based on FACT!
It happened to me! I am proof that polygraphs do not detect lies and "experts" like you that go on with your merry go round to continue to LIE about what polygraph can do collecting more and more victims is just pitiful.
SO ..... you educated charlatan please keep your assumptions and criticisms coming because just like some polygraphers on here you too will be shown that truth, even though you may be too ignorant, money hungry or both to see it quite yet.
I have no desire to debate whether or not DNA should or should not be admissible in court. I have no personal beef with DNA testing. Polygraph on the other hand I have personally discovered to be BULLSHIT  ( legal enough word for you? Though bullshit actually has a good use unlike polygraph).
The legal fact that polygraph itself is not admissible in court also bolsters my personal experience, not to mention countless other sources that also support my finding.
Bring it SANCIIII

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

The Exclusionary Rule is not a sanction against the police, it is a protection afforded to the accused.  There is a significant difference between the two.
I think it is common sense that if the state is going to charge someone with violating the law, the state cannot violate the law in order to obtain their evidence.  That just makes sense to me.   
Regardless of whether the evidence is a DNA sample of something different, the manner in which the police collect the evidence must be within the law.  Your opinion makes it sound like you would support any manner of evidence collection whatsoever, legal or illegal, as long as you knew you were collecting it to prosecute the “right” person.  There is nothing but corruption down that path.