Almost a year later, it may interest you to know that (1) I won, and was able to avoid having to provide DNA via blood sample, and (2) the 9th Circuit is showing signs that it may oppose mandatory DNA collection in cases of religious objection (although this will not affect my case personally).

Cheers,

A

That’s just incredible that they would insist on collecting it in blood. Terrifying actually, that the State would choose a method that causes potential pain and anguish to one that is doesn’t.

It reminds me of the Alan Moore line: “Who watches the Watchmen?”

A friend forwarded me a link to your blog. I try to occasionally respond to these things personally, to reinforce that I’m a real person, that news is not just another program on the TV with no connection to real life, or something that happens to other people.

There is absolutely no difference between the DNA collected by buccal swab and that which is collected via the needless spilling of human blood. Once it’s in the database, the 1’s and 0’s that make up the record are no different.

CODIS, in fact, already contains thousands of records collected via buccal swab by states (including California) and uploaded to the federal DB. There is a less burdensome means of collection readily available, and I cannot speculate on why the federal government would not choose the inexpensive, reasonable alternative — in fact, the defense has offered to pay for buccal swab collection if expense is an issue.

Thank you for taking the time to highlight this important issue. Cheers, and Godspeed : )

Adrian Lamo
Sacramento, CA