Police Swabbing Mouths During Traffic Stops In Serial Killer Hunt

**Illiy** · 02-09-08, 06:32 PM

Police Swabbing Mouths During Traffic Stops In Serial Killer Hunt

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Police officers in Daytona Beach are swabbing
the mouths of persons of interests during traffic stops with special
DNA kits in the hunt for an elusive serial killer, sources close to
the investigation told Local 6.

Investigators said they believe the same man has killed four women
execution style in the Daytona Beach area.

A profiler said the serial killer is likely clean cut and probably
has a wife or girlfriend.

And, the Daytona Beach police Chief, Mike Chitwood, said detectives
have the killer's DNA.

"Genetically, we know who he is," Chitwood said. "We have DNA
evidence from the murder scenes -- so, we got that. That is never
going to go away. And, sooner or later, we will match the DNA to the
physical person and bring closure to everything that is going on."

Agents are using the DNA kits to collect as much DNA as possible
during traffic stops and special operations in hopes on making a
match.

Local 6 showed agents stopping a person of interest from Canada, who
gave his DNA to officers on the street using the DNA kit.

The DNA kits are also being used in prostitution stings in the area.

Chitwood said over time, modern technology will lead to the killer.

"I can tell you that we are working really, really hard," Chitwood
said. "I can tell you that there are a lot of things going on behind
the scenes."

Anyone with information concerning the deaths is urged to call a new
serial killer hotline at 888-619-5734.

**121Traffic** · 02-10-08, 10:48 AM

I'm not sure how I feel about this....

**CTR man** · 02-10-08, 04:31 PM

I have heard that they can now find a persons hair and eye color and ethnic group from a DNA sample. Nice.

**Tgace334** · 02-10-08, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by 121Traffic

I'm not sure how I feel about this....

Id have to say the same here.

Im assuming its on a voluntary basis?

**Lazy Fed** · 02-10-08, 05:36 PM

Hmmm.....

I am not liking that to much..... Don't get me wrong I am all about catching the perps, but I mean.......

**TXCharlie** · 02-10-08, 06:22 PM

I think the DNA swabs should be limited to convicted felons, or maybe those convicted of any jailable offense.

Do they even require felons to submit to that now?

**jmur5074** · 02-10-08, 07:21 PM

Well, I imagine that this is a borderline future supreme court case.

But I guess I'm going to have to say I have no problem with it. As long as it doesn't cause some undo hardship on the person stopped, innocent people shouldn't be offended, because the police are trying to find this killer FOR THEM. (You're welcome)

And if this tactic does eventually catch the killer, who cares that it may or may not be constitutional. He's killed 4 people, I don't care how they catch him. And niether should the courts.

Of course, I do my job the way the courts, training, policy, and my boss tell me to. But I think some of it is complete and total bullshit at the same time.

**JAYBIRD33081** · 02-10-08, 07:35 PM

this had to be voluntary i cant imagine the police making ppl give up there dna.

**Ender** · 02-10-08, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Tgace334

Im assuming its on a voluntary basis?

the other article i read said it was voluntary.

but you know how much we can trust news articles, one way or the other....

**TXCharlie** · 02-10-08, 10:33 PM

If it's voluntary, do you think a Serial Killer would be dumb enough to submit to it?

Bui I do suppose that his FAMILY might submit to it, since they're probably clueless that they have a serial killer in their family.

That might be enough if the tests uncover a genetic similarity with someone, because I guess that might lead them to the relative who did it.

**Terminator** · 02-10-08, 10:41 PM

I'm not surprised Mike Chitwood is involved in this. Mike is the new Chief for Daytona Beach PD. He was Portland, Maine's Chief forever and a day. I was a cop in Maine before I moved to NC. Mike was called "Media Mike" by his subordinates. They didn't like him, and he was a media hog.

**gozling** · 02-10-08, 11:06 PM

if it isnt mandatory/volunteering then that is up to the individual to give their dna at that time...
personally if i was stopped and someone said- give me your dna - i would give them the card to my attorney and say go through those channels... having nothing to hide of course- but i dont want to open the door further to the borderline violations of my own privacy.. if they want to follow me and hunt me down till i drink and dispose of a water bottle then fine .. do that lol... but i dont like the idea of stopping me while i am going about my own fucking business and asking for dna... give me the ticket...and let me finish my grocery shopping.
this could be a very topsy turvey thing in my opinion.

**Ender** · 02-10-08, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by gozling

this could be a very topsy turvey thing in my opinion.

agreed. I don't like it in principle, but it is (apparently) not a requirement, just a request.

I've always believed that people have rights, but have the responsibility to understand them. I'd say absolutely not in a heartbeat and do just about what you said in your post.

**121Traffic** · 02-10-08, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by jmur5074

But I guess I'm going to have to say I have no problem with it. As long as it doesn't cause some undo hardship on the person stopped, innocent people shouldn't be offended, because the police are trying to find this killer FOR THEM. (You're welcome)

Such arguments sound good until you REALLY start to think about them from a citizen's standpoint rather than an LEO standpoint. I'm an American citizen first, cop second. The citizen in me agrees with the cop in me when it says any cop that makes me do something that isn't voluntary better have a good fucking reason for doing so. If they're patting me down, it better be because they see a noticeable bulge, etc. If not, the cop in me is pissed that someone isn'tdoing their job within professional standards. The citizen me isn't feeling offended as opposed to violated. Undue hardship? To me, having my mouth swabbed against my will IS undo hardship! It’s not about being offended. It’s about my fourth amendment right that supposedly protects me from unwarranted search or seizure.

Collecting DNA is a slippery slope even when you're talking about arrestees. Let it be known that I have NO problem collecting DNA from folks who come into the correctional system, with some conditions--mainly that the DNA record is destroyed if the defendent is eventually found Not Guilty. Generally, they made the choice to be a shithead and get arrested. Face the consequences, and one of those is coming to be letting someone swab the inside of your cheek with a QTip.

The Supreme Court, however, has already ruled that a traffic stop does NOT constitute the same thing as a reasonable suspicion detainment, and questions asked during a traffic stop do NOT constitute custodial interrogation. How then can we expect people to have to submit to oepning their mouths and having a stranger, LEO or not, swab their body just because they happened to be caught with a taillight out AND they happen to resemble a wanted suspect? That's a slippery slope that even I, as a sworn LEO, do not want to tread. I do want to do everything in my power to catch murderers, but I don't believe in making honest people surrender their constitutional rights in order to do so. Do I think that in some situations (very few in local/state LE, more in the federal/terrorist arena) that the safety of society at large outweighs the "rights" of some shithead that we have reason to believe placed a dirty bomb? Yes. Do I think that line should be treaded at the local level? No. Do I think it's fair to put local officers in a position wherein they have to violate someone's constitutional rights? Hell no. I don't want to ever be in the position where I can't articulate that the ground I tread is legal and will hold up to constitutional scrutiny.

The constitution should be the Bible that LE bases it's principles and tactics upon. But when we start violating our principles in order to catch admittedly very, very evil people, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of being hypocrites who stand for nothing. The Supreme Court agrees with me on that, as evidenced by the shaky convictions they've struck down over the years. Do I agree with all the decisions? No. Are there more than a few cases where, rather than blaming the courts for overturning the decision, I blame the cops for being stupid and cutting corners? Absolutely.

Bottom line, I would hate to catch the guy with DNA, then have him walk free because the collection of that evidence was found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. I probably wouldn't blame thecourts. I consider that a failure on my part to perform my job within the accepted guidelines of the Bill of Rights.

**121Traffic** · 02-10-08, 11:59 PM

Another thing that we should consider here. DNA, unless we have exigency, etc. usually requires a court order when you're talking about a suspect (as opposed to an arrestee booked into jail). Let's say that everyone they WANTED DNA from, they got contact infomation and sent on their way. What would a judge say if you showed up with all these contact cards and said "I want these peoples' DNA...warrants please." The judge would ask why, and you tell him that they committed a traffic infraction and they match the description of a murder suspect. A judge would probably tell you to pound sand.

**k-9max** · 02-11-08, 01:43 AM

Ok, i can see what they are trying to do, however, what happens when joe public gives a mouth swab, then the department puts the DNA sample into the computer database, (i assume this is what they are doing), and they come up with a match to a cold case, or a case of other sort, say murder, rape, ext......
Dont get me wrong here, im all about catching the bad guy, but doing it the right way.
I think there is other ways around this besides DNA swabs on traffic stops.

**Car 4** · 02-11-08, 01:57 AM

Well...this tactic worked in England some years ago. In that case they took blood (even more intrusive) from everyone in town. The killer paid someone to go in posing as him and give a sample. When the cops found out about it, they leaned on the substitute and he gave up the serial killer. It was completely voluntary but think about an entire town agreeing to be tested. They really wanted that freak and they got him...although not quite the way they thought.

That kind of public spirit is getting hard to find in this country....even when the payoff is catching a serial killer.

I once had a supervisor who asked if you would commit a burglary to catch a burglar. It was a rhetorical question but the idea was....what are you willing to do to catch the bad guy. Food for thought in a time when so much is being asked of police and so little is given in the way of help.

Car 4

**gozling** · 02-11-08, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by Car 4

I once had a supervisor who asked if you would commit a burglary to catch a burglar. It was a rhetorical question but the idea was....what are you willing to do to catch the bad guy. Food for thought in a time when so much is being asked of police and so little is given in the way of help.

Car 4

my thoughts here... once a crook like this- always one and eventually they are catchable within the boundaries of an investigation - though it may take time.
i was never willing to x the lines of my ethics to catch anyone
i can see how some would want to with so many frustrations out there.

**Car 4** · 02-11-08, 02:16 AM

I never crossed the line either but I did investigate close to it a time or two.

Your point is well taken Gozling...but I would offer that there would be no need for Cold Case Teams if justice always got it's man.

**gozling** · 02-11-08, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Car 4

I never crossed the line either but I did investigate close to it a time or two.

Your point is well taken Gozling...but I would offer that there would be no need for Cold Case Teams if justice always got it's man.

the neat thing about cold case teams is just that... back then there wasnt the technology to deal with crimes like there is now... time catches up with everyone and that is where the cold case guys come into play i think...
its almost like a Karma squad... at least that was what i called my friend JJ at the station who was on that squad lol...

I think i am that little girl sometimes that always thinks things will be found out- like crossing the line just a little to gain evidence-- only to have it somehow found out and then the fucker walks out of the court room laughing as he passes me like some awful movie.. and thus.. Karma kicked me in the ass instead...

or maybe it was just the nuns in catholic school... lol