Portland - No more gang designations, because minorities.

[Fife]

Its just about time to plant a chip in every one of these alias-assing motherfuckers. Just sayin.

amirite?

[Okeefenokee]

Should we tell google to pull those images, as they represent an archive of aliases?

[de officiis]

I read it, and thought about it. I didn't want to get into a "fruit of the poisonous tree" discussion in this forum, but since you asked . . . the mere existence of this type of database by the state is problematic.

Just because John Q. Public can see something and take a picture of it doesn't mean that the government can do the same, IMNSHO.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is a search & seizure doctrine which has no bearing on the topic at hand. The onous is in you to put forth a rational argument on what data law enforcement may or may not reasonably collect about private citizens, and why. I assume you're down with a rap sheet, for starters?

Meh. You want to get hyper-technical? I can do that, but I doubt that more than about 5 members would understand what we would be talking about, much less give a shit.

As far as what "onus" is on me, I'll rely upon the constitution.

I suppose a "rap sheet" (depending on the definition) would be inside the ambit of allowed state power under a mosaic theory. I'm not sure about that yet, though.

I'm talking about a police arrest & criminal conviction record. Surely we can agree that the public has the right to maintain such records for some period of time.

What about, for example, the situation where the police are pursuing an active criminal investigation about a gang-related murder? No one's been convicted, but they have suspects--some of whom may have clean records, but are affiliated with the gang. Why shouldn't the police be allowed to learn of and retain such data if it helps solve a crime? What is RICO if not dependent on this type of data?

[DBTrek]

A reasonable compromise would be to maintain the data for a set period of time (choose a reasonable number) and then delete it unless the person is convicted of a crime, in which case the data would be retained for another period of time.

Without wading out of my depth (into the legal territory of you and Fife), the compromise seems perfectly acceptable to me.
You don't want a gang affiliation to haunt you for life? Ok. Give it a decade, we'll purge it.
Not that purging it matters, since it's an internal database anyway, but if it makes it more palatable to the masses, whatever.