Comments on: The Supreme Court and Mandatory Collection of DNA from Arrestees – “Stay” Tuned! http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2012/07/22/the-action-inaction-distinction-before-nfib-v-sebelius/ Wed, 15 May 2013 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mark Mayfield http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2012/07/22/the-action-inaction-distinction-before-nfib-v-sebelius/comment-page-1/#comment-61082 Mark Mayfield Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:51:42 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=2470#comment-61082 I practice in juvenile court in Northern California. This is a standard order for juveniles on probation for a felony. I have heard of instances where law enforcement officers take DNA samples of juveniles prior to there being any adjudication, always described later as a "mistake." More practitioners need to be aware of this issue. Thanks for posting this article. I practice in juvenile court in Northern California. This is a standard order for juveniles on probation for a felony.

I have heard of instances where law enforcement officers take DNA samples of juveniles prior to there being any adjudication, always described later as a “mistake.”

More practitioners need to be aware of this issue. Thanks for posting this article.

]]> By: Margaret P. Rudolf http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2012/07/22/the-action-inaction-distinction-before-nfib-v-sebelius/comment-page-1/#comment-22895 Margaret P. Rudolf Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:48:48 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=2470#comment-22895 Possibly should be allowed for those convicted of crimes but not for those merely arrested, due to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Possibly should be allowed for those convicted of crimes but not for those merely arrested, due to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

]]>