To rule out speculation that a police officer committed a complicated crime, police officials have ordered the DNA testing of law enforcement personnel. This unpopular order was issued after the deaths of eight women in Louisiana in 2009. These were cases of a serial killer that showed a high degree of “workmanship” in committing the murders. Rumors spread that a police officer was involved in the killings. Consequently, all officers in Louisiana agreed to undergo testing. The final outcome showed that the killer was not among them.

Some officers feel that this DNA collection is not something they should give much attention to. They say that having a DNA file of police officers is important in conducting crime scene investigations because it would make it easier for them to recognize unknown genetic materials found at crime scenes.

However, others believe that handing over their DNA should not be an easy decision. There are many privacy concerns that have to be clarified prior to giving in to this DNA collection. Those who do not believe in the idea of DNA profiling say that there have to be safeguards in place. Owners of the DNA should have a clear understanding as to how this DNA would be handled and by making sure that it is treated with extreme care.

Police unions have also given their official stand concerning this matter. Their officials have told their members about the possible outcome of agreeing to their DNA being profiled. They said that there are no controls as to the storage of the DNA, so there is a high likelihood of privacy and abuse problems.

Some countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have been keeping files of DNA of their officers for several years. It was in 1995 when the U.K. government started their system of keeping a database of criminal suspects. The United States later adopted this same system, and the country is believed to have the world’s largest DNA database of criminals today.

What happened was he wrote a letter to his dad and left it in an unsealed envelope. The letter described his confusion with his actions, and how he was disturbed that he killed another man. Prison officials seized the letter and used it as evidence against the man in a case against him. This letter provided irrefutable proof that he did indeed kill the man, and this would certainly land him a guilty charge, with no contest. This man would be in prison for the rest of his life, if not land him on death row.

In court, prison officials argued that the letter wasn’t sealed, and that all prisoners have to have all of their mail scanned and censored, both out-going and incoming. This, they argue, would have had the letter found anyway, so they would have gotten him like that. They also argue the letter is good evidence. The man argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were being violated by them reading and seizing his un-sent letter. Even though it was unsealed, they still should have not been allowed to get into it. By doing this, the evidence should be negated he said, and he wasn’t planning on sending the letter anyway, it was just a venting system.

This is an interesting case. People would side with the prisoner for his appeal to pathos in which the prison guards had no right to steal the letter as he hadn’t sent it, but the other side appeals strongly to their logos; the letter incriminated an existing criminal and the crime was murder, the most severe off all. The question is, are privacy laws reserved for even cold blooded killers?

The answer apparently is no. The court ruled that the guards had a strong right to take the prisoners mail, and now he will stand trial for murder with this huge piece of evidence in front of him. It is doubt able at best that the trial will be unbiased, even without this new discovery.

As long as you are out in the free world though, the Constitution protects you. Everyone has a right to privacy law’s protection, and it is our sovereign right as American citizens. No one can take this right away, try as they might in today’s society. You are a free person on the Internet as well. The only one that should be able to read your documents without your permission is you. Consider this when weighing the decision of getting an anonymous proxy server or not.