Thanks for calling that one right.

It is great that one of the cabbies came out in a local paper today to indicate why she refused to give DNA and speak about the pressure she was put under.

The Charter of Rights speaks about the protection against self incrimination.

I believe taking blood samples can be considered to provide incriminating evidence and ought to require a court order in such circumstances which will allow a judge to determine whether there is a compelling reason to allow such an action. As I understand it, the Charter is not absolute on the issue.

Taken in for questioning in itself does not provide Canadians as much protection as USA citizens. Once an arrest takes place, I understand a few additional safeguards are put in place.

BTW, I believe Canadian law does not require police to allow a lawyer to be present during questioning. That in itself is interesting.

Does anyone know why this is surfacing now when these "interviews", etc. took place some 3 months ago?

I think one or more of the cabbies should file a complaint, otherwise this practice will continue.

As usual we forge ahead with our **New** technology that will help solve all sorts of crimes, such as the **DNA** without any consideration for what this actually entails.

We once again come to the age old adage. **For every action there is a re-action**

Has no one ever considered how dangerous it is to prosecute someone using their dna as evidence. I cant think of anything that could be easier to plant at a crime scene, as someone elses dna. Once that starts to happen, and Im sure it will, then using dna will no longer be a fait accomplai.

The upside of the DNA is the number of people who have been released from prison, and proven innocent of the crimes they were charged with. The downside is that we put innocent people in prison.

We need to ensure that all aspects of criminal investigation are closely watched, to ensure that there are no abuses of our civil liberties.

While I agree that this is unsettling on the surface I am going to reserve judgement until we hear what evidence led the police to this point. I think that will tell more of the story.

I think they should do ANYTHING to solve the murders.
If getting DNA from cab drivers is required, fly at it.
Any cab driver who did not do anything wrong has nothing to fear.

What would people say if down the road they find out it WAS a cab driver who did these crimes and they did not get DNA sample from cabbies? Than they would all be in an uproar and asking why they did not get DNA's earlier!!

I am sick of this human rights BS when they try to solve crimes. Support the RCMP in this!!!! ANYTHING helps!!

I assumed when I heard this information that the police had a court order instructing the collection of DNA.
If there is nothing strong enough in the investigation to warrant this, the police have absolutely no right to even ask for samples.
The drivers should refuse to cooperate.
This is a Charter rights issue.

I wonder how HD would feel if the police, doing anything to solve a crime, decided that a full body cavity search of his or her person was required.

Common Law requires the state to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, while NOT requiring citizens to prove their own innocence.

Under HD's logic, the police could tag us all with tracking collars to prevent and solve crimes.
Thanks for reliquishing your rights so easily.

"Has no one ever considered how dangerous it is to prosecute someone using their dna as evidence. I cant think of anything that could be easier to plant at a crime scene, as someone elses dna"

Exactly Palopu. They tried to frame OJ by doing exactly that. Thank God that justice finally prevailed in that situation!

I'm actually going to disagree with most people here. I don't really see this case as a human rights issue or anything like that. I see it as an attempt to solve an ongoing murder investigation.

The only issue I would have is if they were asking for samples of DNA without just cause. One would assume that they have cause given that they are targeting a specific population within our city and a specific company for that matter. I highly doubt they just drew the business name out of a hat and said "okay let's see if we get lucky". THAT would be a fishing trip and that would be offside IMHO.

Maybe in the future the policy should be to go before the courts with their evidence and have a judge rule on whether the request is okay. That is probably a reasonable compromise and it builds a level of independent review into it.

As an aside, I wonder if people were making these exact same arguments when fingerprints were being taken. As a kid I remember getting them done at the mall as a way to help identify me if I was ever abducted. Were people freaking out about human rights then? How much of a factor is it that the reputation of the RCMP is at an all time low? Is there really THAT much difference between the pattern of skin on the end of someone's fingertip and the pattern of their DNA, other than the fact that one requires a slightly more invasive procedure to acquire it?

I agree completely NMG - We need to know what raised this company up on the radar. I will guarantee it was more than the "these girls used cabs frequently" press release. Until we know then we cannot say that this wasnt completely justified.

"Exactly Palopu. They tried to frame OJ by doing exactly that. Thank God that justice finally prevailed in that situation!"

The above refers to planting evidence. The OJ example is a really bad one! He was found guilty in the civil trial - the size 12 O'Maly shoes' bloody footprints were found on the concrete pathway at the murder scene. Only a couple of size 12 O'Maly shoes were sold in the area and OJ denied owning a pair. However, after the *not guilty* verdict in the criminal trial a picture in a sports magazine (taken and published before the trial!) surfaced which showed OJ wearing precisely that pair of shoes which he denied ever owning!

THAT evidence was not planted by anyone, because no one knew ahead of time that he was going to murder two people in the future!

There was other evidence (his blood on the garden gate in the backyard of his house - he had cut his fingers during the gruesome murders) and half a dozen other things, like the gloves which were supposed to have been planted at the crime scene when it was totally impossible for anyone to know that he would be a suspect, him being a highly revered and adored US sports figure!

It was this very trial with all the BS of planted evidence and other diversions which made me lose any faith I still had in the much vaunted American justice system.

DNA evidence has freed from prison in the USA quite a few inmates who had been falsely convicted and served decades in jail! New DNA technology has proven them innocent.

We do not want innocent people doing time. Guilty people should doing the time that fits the crime.

First we must find and arrest them.

Here in PG we are faced with an extraordinary situation - the unsolved murders of many women. The murderer needs to be caught before he can strike again. Asking for DNA samples is an extraordinary measure taken during extraordinary circumstances.

It may be objected to by a few who are worried about our civil rights. I too believe that this should never become standard procedure and that this circumstance is so exceptional that it ought to be a one time occurrence. Anyone can refuse - no one can be compelled by force without proper legal procedure.

That's my opinion.

Here's how I see it. If the RCMP had good grounds to suspect there is evidence hiding at the taxi company in the form of DNA, where is the warrant?

There is a process in this country and one that, on the surface at least, appears to be shirked by members of the RCMP.

Laziness would prompt an officer to just go ahead and try to get the "evidence" under the guise of voluntary release of such evidence. However, IF, hypothetically, they do indeed get what they are looking for, and happen to arrest someone, I can promise you this much, the arrested person will fight to have that dna evidence thrown out based on how it was obtained.

It is very similar to a cop showing up at your door to talk to about something and then just nonchalantly going through your house and asking you to "voluntarily" provide a sample of your clothing and then telling you, you are a person of interest if you don't let them.

It is the oldest gag in the book. Tell a half-truth, so you don't have to fill appropriate paperwork. This short cut to competent investigations only adds to the lack of faith Canadians have in their police force.

Also, the Charter of Rights PROHIBITS (as does the Criminal Code) unlawful search and seizure. It has nothing to do with self-incrimination like the American system. It (The Charter) ensures that (well it's supposed to) we won't be subject to a police state where you are assumed guilty and forced to comply with demands by an officer without JUST cause.

The more we just "cooperate" the more we lose. Security of person is going the way of the dodo bird it seems.

There is nothing wrong with cooperation but where is the justification in giving samples? How can an entire employee list be subject to dna samples? Think about it. It really is groping in the dark I think.

Hypothetical thought process of the cop: "yeah we pretty sure it a cabbie. No can't fill out a warrant request based on a maybe...but we could just target the company, poke around and get them to volunteer their dna. Heck, if I'm right, we could wrap up this case AND I would be a hero".

Just a thought and my opinion.

The question I would like to ask, is why did Sam Kuulivainen give up everybodys names and other information, without a warrant or permission from the individual taxi drivers. He has gone way beyond, and I hope the taxi drivers have enough rocks to vote this self serving individual out as manager at the next AGM in April. He is not a manager, are you SAM? Let the law suits begain SAM.