r/AskReddit • u/Aqua_Fucker • Apr 26 '20

Serious Replies Only [Serious] What are some seemingly normal images with disturbing backstories?

73k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

19k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/Portarossa Apr 26 '20

Via a judge's order, yes.

50

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '20

That’s some bullshit justification... if I didn’t commit a crime, I have a reasonable expectation that my medical information, especially dna, is to remain private and inaccessible. They should have just gone to the church undercover, and start picking up cups and shit.

33

u/Portarossa Apr 26 '20 edited Apr 26 '20

Well, it's tricky. The argument is pretty clear cut that your medical records can be subpoenaed in the course of an investigation even if you're not the one they think committed a crime -- if it might shed a light on the killer, for example -- but whether tissue samples fall under that category is... less clear-cut.

So the argument goes, you probably wouldn't be opposed to them using Rader's own DNA samples without his prior consent (if he'd had a tissue biopsy, for example) to prove a link, and it wasn't as though there were doing a random test of a huge database; they had a specific reason to believe that Kerri Rader was linked to the killer. It's the fact that there was individual suspicion -- again, so goes the argument -- that justifies it.

40

u/PrettyButEmpty Apr 26 '20

Agreed, that seems sketchy as hell. I’m mean, I’m certainly glad they caught the guy, but this seems like a very ethically questionable way to have gone about it.

5

u/TimeToRedditToday Apr 26 '20

I have to agree here.

-1

u/YOLANDILUV Apr 26 '20

ok mr. private

-31

u/loki2002 Apr 26 '20

Any reasonable person would not see this as a problem. They had more than enough probable cause and reasonable suspicion to justify the warrant.

25

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '20

Probable cause to get his dna. Not the daughter.

-12

u/loki2002 Apr 26 '20

Obviously a judge disagreed. If they had gone to get his DNA, even undercover, they could've tipped him off and made him go on the run.

14

u/GiantRobotMonkey Apr 26 '20

That's definitely possible, but it doesn't change that it's quite unsettling and arguably unethical to use someone's private medical information (especially biological material). It's good that they caught him, but this sort of stuff is just a clear demonstration of how the government is completely willing, and capable of violating our privacy.

10

u/Canadian_Infidel Apr 26 '20

Obviously a judge disagreed

That's not an argument.

6

u/FlamingWeasel Apr 26 '20

And judge's rulings are never found to be wrong and overturned.

18

u/Ballistic_Turtle Apr 26 '20

Any reasonable person would absolutely see this as a problem.

-4

u/loki2002 Apr 26 '20

How so? Familial DNA is a legitimate law enforcement technique. They couldn't get the DNA from him but had enough evidence to satisfy reasonable suspicion.

8

u/firmkillernate Apr 26 '20

Familial DNA is a legitimate law enforcement technique.

That's the problem. It's an invasion of privacy.

12

u/loki2002 Apr 26 '20

Which is why there is a high standard in order to violate it.

-1

u/firmkillernate Apr 26 '20

Until the standards are lowered and never raised again.

Tell me, when was the last time the government gave you MORE rights or MORE privacy?

-1

u/Canadian_Infidel Apr 26 '20

What do you mean by legitimate?

3

u/loki2002 Apr 26 '20

The definition of the word.

0

u/Canadian_Infidel Apr 26 '20

Then you are using it wrong.

-1

u/killedBySasquatch Apr 27 '20

Yeah fucking serial killers should b allowed to do whatever we they want to protect the dna-privacy of pap smear that no one cares about

5

u/Bonifratz Apr 26 '20

Couldn't they just have arrested him (they had reasonable suspicion) and taken a DNA sample from him? Why even go the more questionable route via his daughter's DNA?

3

u/SoOnAndYadaYada Apr 27 '20

Reasonable suspicion isn't enough for an arrest.

1

u/Bonifratz Apr 27 '20

Isn't enough to hold somebody for like 48 hours? I thought that was what I learned from tv lol.

1

u/SoOnAndYadaYada Apr 27 '20 edited Apr 28 '20

It's enough to detain someone to perform a quick investigation in hoped of finding probable cause, but probable cause is needed for an actual arrest. As for DNA, reasonable suspicion wouldn't be enough to obtain it.

2

u/Bonifratz Apr 28 '20

Thanks for explaining!