I agree! If he couldn’t argue the case correctly they’d probably get so exhausted with the whole thing he would win anyway.

You would have made a good lawyer, Tdarcos. I would love to see you take the stand.

[quote=Flack post_id=139669 time=1695866852 user_id=840]A birth certificate is a legal document and falsifying information on it is a crime. [/quote]
Yeah, and unless the false information is discovered within 3 years, the statute of limitations kicks in.
[quote=Flack post_id=139669 time=1695866852 user_id=840]I would argue that requiring DNA proof to validate a name on a legal document would fall under exclusionary evidence, evidence that has been illegally obtained prior to proof of a crime having been committed. [/quote]
In order to exclude evidence as illegally obtained, the evidence must be obtained in violation of someone's 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th Amendment rights, or the equivalent or similar right under the state's constitution. That makes it illegal with respect to that person only.

Example: police search a drug dealer's apartment without probable cause, no exigent circumstances, without a warrant, and/or a warrant illegally obtained. They find your fingerprints on his bags of cocaine (because you're [i]his[/i] dealer.) Now, the dealer's lawyer finds out about the illegal search and files a motion to suppress, and it's found the drugs were illegally seized. That makes the drugs inadmissible - in his trial. Your constitutional rights were not violated, ergo you have no standing to exclude the fingerprint evidence if you go to trial. Same thing if someone busts into your house and steals your stash, but turns it in to the cops for immunity. As long as the police in no way encouraged or hired him to commit the burglary, that evidence is admissible against you.

The 5th Amendment only prohibits testimonial evidence from being used against you. The collection of a baby's footprint for its birth certificate does not violate its rights (and would only apply if it was a government hospital.) Collecting DNA from both or either parent, if not a government hospital, raises no constitutional issues.

It was recently announced that the FBI currently has DNA profiles on file for 7% of Americans (a little more than 20 million people) and is requesting to double its DNA gathering budget. I believe the goal is 50% over the next 20 years. These are DNA profiles they have in their database and not all the public ones they obviously have access to. One way they have increased their numbers is by changing laws -- for example, they used to only take DNA samples from convicted felons, but now in many (most?) states they can take samples from ACCUSED felons. (Colorado can now take a DNA sample when you are simply booked.)

A birth certificate is a legal document and falsifying information on it is a crime. I would argue that requiring DNA proof to validate a name on a legal document would fall under exclusionary evidence, evidence that has been illegally obtained prior to proof of a crime having been committed. Then again I think speed traps should fall under the same ruling, and based on all the tickets I received as a teenager, clearly they do not.

Sounds like we all agree, Tdarcos. Now. How are you going to make it happen?

That would be amazing for the Familial DNA Testing industry. It's totally not unfair to catch someone for something by using their family's dna so lets do more of that.

Let's do it. They are already pokin' around the mother. Let's get the dad in the system.

And Let's DNA test the mom too right. Right?

[quote=Tdarcos post_id=139661 time=1695834662 user_id=829]
At least one state (Tennessee) requires, for unmarried (heterosexual) couples where a baby is going to be born, that a DNA test be performed on the baby before the man (the presumed father) can sign the birth certificate.[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtKEMWX8OqU

At least one state (Tennessee) requires, for unmarried (heterosexual) couples where a baby is going to be born, that a DNA test be performed on the baby before the man (the presumed father) can sign the birth certificate. This may be extended to all births.

The reason being is to stop "paternity fraud": the practice where a woman who knows the man she is (or was) living with or married to (or divorced from) is not the father of her child, but demands child support from him, anyway. It has been estimated that as much as 40% of children in separated/divorced couples were fathered by someone who is not the purported father who is paying child support.

For obvious reasons there is some resistance to this idea, and the objections are almost universally from women. But not all women. Some think this is a great idea, if for no other reason than it prevents a man from denying responsibility if he is, or the woman falsely claiming so when he isn't, the father. Of course, this is the sort of issue that, if it is discovered, can tear some marriages/relationships apart.

Do you think this is a good requirement to be required on all births? It can be similar to the practice where all babies born vaginally have drops put in their eyes at birth to prevent them from getting gonorrhea from the mother, notwithstanding whether the mother might have it. A DNA swab is taken from the baby, and from both parents, in order to confirm parentage. Or do you disagree, because you can see this as something that can be used for nefarious purposes?