Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest
NBC News ^ | 06/03/2013 | Pete Williams, Erin McClam

Posted on 06/03/2013 7:41:56 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested for a serious offense but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.

The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

At an oral argument in February, Justice Samuel Alito called the question perhaps the most important criminal procedure case the court had taken up in decades.

(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4a; arrest; dnaswab; dnatest; fingerprints; scotus; tyranny

1 posted on 06/03/2013 7:41:56 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“for a serious offense”

Be prepared to interpret this down to jaywalking over the next few years.


2 posted on 06/03/2013 7:43:08 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; Hunton Peck; Diana in Wisconsin; P from Sheb; Shady; DonkeyBonker; Wisconsinlady; ...

Another article on the SCOTUS decision on DNA testing.

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.


3 posted on 06/03/2013 7:44:25 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

4 posted on 06/03/2013 7:44:38 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Every dirty cop will be abusing this ruling soon. As if the police being able to lie obtain information wasn’t bad enough.

Add another group the anti-Constitutional crowd.


5 posted on 06/03/2013 7:44:41 AM PDT by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The 5 no doubt feared some perp getting sprung only to discover years later he was guilty of 25 rapes.


6 posted on 06/03/2013 7:46:35 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Breyer’s position shifting after being the victim of a home invasion?


7 posted on 06/03/2013 7:51:41 AM PDT by kenmcg (scapegoat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

Pretty difficult to argue with. If there was a constitutional issue here, it should have been made when fingerprinting became prevalent.

DNA can be used for some additional somewhat unsavory purposes, but simply for ID it is very similar to fingerprinting.

8 posted on 06/03/2013 7:56:37 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Given the police can flat-out lie to you, and that they have been known to plant marijuana and/or guns, I wonder if they won’t start planting DNA too...


9 posted on 06/03/2013 7:57:59 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Decision here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf

“Held: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be de-tained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing,a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment...

...Maryland’s Act authorizes law en-forcement authorities to collect DNA samples from, as relevant here, persons charged with violent crimes,including first-degree assault. A sample may not be added to a database before an individual is ar-raigned, and it must be destroyed if, e.g.,he is not convicted...

...The framework for deciding the issue presented is well established. Using a buccal swab inside a person’s cheek to obtain a DNA sample is a search under the Fourth Amendment. And the fact that the intrusion is negligible is of central relevance to determining whether the search is reasonable, “the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search,” Vernonia School Dist. 47Jv. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 652. Because the need for a warrant is greatly diminished here, where the arrestee was already in valid police custody for a serious offense supported by probable cause, the search is analyzed by reference to “reasonableness, not individualized suspicion,” Samsonv. California, 547 U. S. 843, 855, n. 4, and reasonableness is determined by weighing “the promotion of legitimate govern-mental interests” against “the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual’s privacy,” Wyomingv. Houghton, 526 U. S. 295, 300. Pp. 7–10.”

At first glance, I’m inclined to agree with the decision. The 4th Amendment was meant to prevent general warrants, which lasted as long as the king was alive and allowed a search of your property at any time.


10 posted on 06/03/2013 8:01:53 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I know that a significant percentage of FReepers won’t agree with this decision, but I agree with this overturning of the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling that such “searches” are unconstitutional.


11 posted on 06/03/2013 8:02:09 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I’d argue that a fingerprint does not contain information on heredity, propensity to disease, and all of the defining information of one’s physical composition. So, not really similar.


12 posted on 06/03/2013 8:08:20 AM PDT by loungitude (The truth hurts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I’m conflicted about this decision. Fingerprints, blood, BAC, hair, DNA, iris scans, tatoo pics. What’s next when technology allows it? Semen, brain waves?


13 posted on 06/03/2013 8:10:58 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“...ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting”

Because the government could always abuse fingerprints to determine paternity, look for genetic markers that predict cancer, etc.

Yep, DNA is just like fingerprints.


14 posted on 06/03/2013 8:14:40 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

So if the “probable cause” reason for searching falls through, then the DNA info gained is inadmissable?

Also, what is so hard about getting a legitimate warrant is the suspect is detained?


15 posted on 06/03/2013 8:15:57 AM PDT by DrewsMum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I speak as someone who has their DNA ‘on file’ (we put blood samples on cards in the Army, which could later be used to identify our remains).

I don’t feel real good about it. I can imagine a world where the HHS gets their hands on my DNA, and finds a way to raise my insurance rates, if it finds a genetic marker for cancer. I can imagine a world where the federal governemnt starts to build a national genetic family tree...for the purposes of retribution. It might discover that my great, great, great grandfather owned slaves...and prescribe that I pay into a repparations fund. I can imagine a world where the federal government identifies that I have a genetic predisposition to being violent...and I can no longer pass a background check.

This is huge - the government (which I have little trust towards) has just been given the key code to our genetic code. The socialistic possibilities of this are endless.

And it is nooooothing like fingerprints...which are good for one solitary purpose, and nothing else - establishing identity.


16 posted on 06/03/2013 8:21:37 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The problem is not in taking the DNA and comparing it with existing samples of DNA taken from crime scenes. The problem is the retention of that sample and its information, not just at the local, but the state and federal level.

The feds in particular want a permanent database of the DNA of all people living in the US, and even that of people who visit the US. It’s just another part of their obsessive voyeurism and illusion of micromanaging control over people.

It is way past the point of reasonableness, and is in the realm of mental illness. Something that should be taken into account when you hear the pleadings of those that crave ever more information about the lives of their subjects.

And something that should definitely be ended by those people interested in limited government.


17 posted on 06/03/2013 8:21:51 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“Maryland’s Act authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from, as relevant here, persons charged with violent crimes,including first-degree assault. A sample may not be added to a database before an individual is arraigned, and it must be destroyed if, e.g.,he is not convicted”

Is the law obeyed or are samples kept? Are samples reported to the feds but discarded locally? I don’t think fingerprints are discarded, they are reported to the feds conviction or no.


18 posted on 06/03/2013 8:23:16 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: loungitude

“I’d argue that a fingerprint does not contain information on heredity, propensity to disease, and all of the defining information of one’s physical composition. So, not really similar.”

Just wait until the IRS gets to use this information to determine your health insurance rates, etc.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS doesn’t eventually demand DNA tests for everyone.


19 posted on 06/03/2013 8:25:23 AM PDT by RadiationRomeo (Step into my mind and glimpse the madness that is me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

No it’s not the same. You don’t lose anything physical with fingerprinting or photography. With this you lose some cells, so it’s not just a search, it’s a seizure. And a seizure without due process or just compensation.

I know a few cells aren’t much to be seized, but where do you draw the new line and what keeps them from moving it again once it is drawn? Remember, we already had a line, at least in the opinion of some, and this changes it.


20 posted on 06/03/2013 8:27:45 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Agreed.


21 posted on 06/03/2013 8:32:48 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Taking DNA for merely being arrested is insanity. What DNA can reveal about a person is significantly different than fingerprints.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea obviously trusts Government FAR more than I do.

22 posted on 06/03/2013 8:41:41 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I wodner if it’s possible to kick the Supeme court leeches out of hteir jobs for deriliction of duty, and appoint others with actual morals and ethics and hwo undersatand our constitution and who aren’t owned by the govenrment for skeletons i ntheir closets?

This latest rulign should leave NO doubt that our supreme court is now a majority of TRAITORS to the peopel TRAITORS to the constitution


23 posted on 06/03/2013 8:59:17 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loungitude

[[I’d argue that a fingerprint does not contain information on heredity, propensity to disease, and all of the defining information of one’s physical composition. So, not really similar.]]

Absolutely, You just nailed it- There’s a masive push by our govenrment to pass laws which will give our govenrment the ‘right’ to bar citizens from owning guns, (and apaprently fro mexcersizign hteir free speech too) and htis collection of DNA WILL BE antoher tool at their disposal for barring someone they deem ‘unfit’ from owning a gun

A couple of years ago our govenrment was puttign together a MASSIVE nationwide network of medical record, and at hte same time doctors began handing out anti-depressents, anti-anxiety, anti-psychotic drugs liek htey were candy- for everythign from actual depression or mental issues, to thigns as minor as aches and pains- claiming that unbalanced seratonine levels ‘coudl cause minor pains’-

This was NO accident- all those folks who were prescribed those anti- drugs are now in a database with a red flag beside their name and albeeled as ‘possible threat’

Now we have our governemtn collecting DNA which WILL do just what you said- be markers for any history of anything- even slight depression- which might have run in a family, but which NEVER caused any problems (despite thsoe members havign owned guns- but now oru govenrment WILL intervein and confiscate the guns)

Think it can’t happen Folks? Think this is all just a ‘bunch of hysteria over nothing’? It IS happening- NY is confiscating guns from folks hwo were on depression medicines but who have commited no crimes- They are cofniscatign guns WITHOUT due process and WITHOUT any actual professional diagnosis’ of depression- Other states will sooon follow


24 posted on 06/03/2013 9:08:56 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

[[I don’t feel real good about it. I can imagine a world where the HHS gets their hands on my DNA, and finds a way to raise my insurance rates, if it finds a genetic marker for cancer.]]

Excellent point- The potential for abuses are massive- I’m sure the left will argue htough “Well, ethically, you shoudl find out if you are goign to be a liability because of a genetic issue, and if so, you shoudl be obligated to ‘pay your fair share’”

See where that is going?

[[I can imagine a world where the federal governemnt starts to build a national genetic family tree...]]

Pssst- the tree already has rooted itself

[[I can imagine a world where the federal government identifies that I have a genetic predisposition to being violent...and I can no longer pass a background check.]]

AgaIN- the [potential for abuses by such a system are frightening- If they can’t get you via medical records, they may still be able to ban you from anythign requiring a backgroudn check via DNA records fro mtheir database

[[And it is nooooothing like fingerprints...which are good for one solitary purpose, and nothing else - establishing identity]]

Precisely


25 posted on 06/03/2013 9:14:46 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

[[I know a few cells aren’t much to be seized, but where do you draw the new line and what keeps them from moving it again once it is drawn? Remember, we already had a line, at least in the opinion of some, and this changes it.]]

That’s thje tactic of hte left- keep movign hte goalposts until no right are left- and incredibly, Americans keep votign for htis loss of rights-


26 posted on 06/03/2013 9:16:55 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I wonder if they won’t start planting DNA too...

Not only cops, DNA can be planted by anyone.

Cigarette butts, hair from a brush for example. It's not possible to do that with a finger print.

Talk about an easy way to set up an enemy.

27 posted on 06/03/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (The government rejects the natural law because it is an obstacle to its control over us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: loungitude

As stated, DNA can be used for more than ID. But if that’s all it’s used for, it’s pretty much the same thing.


28 posted on 06/03/2013 9:27:52 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I wodner if it’s possible to kick the Supeme court leeches out of hteir jobs for deriliction of duty, and appoint others with actual morals and ethics and hwo undersatand our constitution and who aren’t owned by the govenrment for skeletons i ntheir closets?

Sure is. Judges can be impeached and removed from office using the exact same procedure as for executive branch officials. Hasn't been used very often, though.

29 posted on 06/03/2013 9:30:44 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop

Game over.

The USA is now a Gestapo Totalitarian State.
.
.
USA is f***ed.


30 posted on 06/03/2013 10:07:39 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45 (t ask the BIG question,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: loungitude

And don’t be surprised if it gets shared with the IRS to ‘facilitate the accuracy’ of your Obammycare.


31 posted on 06/03/2013 11:50:13 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Along those lines, isn’t it curious how the Innocence Project can use DNA to free people from ‘Death Row’, but it seems DNA is never convincing enough to use for an expedient execution?


32 posted on 06/03/2013 11:55:24 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
And something that should definitely be ended by those people interested in limited government.

Those wackobirds? They'll be the first to get tested.

33 posted on 06/03/2013 12:20:18 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (I remember when a President having an "enemies list" was a scandal. Now, they have a kill list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
As stated, DNA can be used for more than ID.

Monsanto Conspiracy Alert ping...


34 posted on 06/03/2013 12:21:01 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

They’ve probably got most people’s DNA in a data base already. Ever lick a stamp? This will just make it where they don’t have to keep it secret any more.


35 posted on 06/03/2013 12:34:40 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (President Obma; The Slumlord of the Rentseekers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin
I do not like the decision. For that matter I do not like the fingerprinting either. Yes, if one is convicted for certain crimes THEN they could lose some liberties/freedoms. However, innocent until proven guilty should mean something, I for one do not want any of my identifying materials available for government bureaucrats to for instance frame me with. I trust government as far as I can limit government.
36 posted on 06/03/2013 6:50:21 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Exactly and if it ends up in an Obamacare file, oh Ooops.


37 posted on 06/04/2013 1:18:05 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I like your posts.


38 posted on 06/04/2013 1:19:24 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

In all fairness, W. Bush was responsible for the vile HIPAA, which is a police state fantasy, stripping away the privacy of medical records until it is repealed, plus a generation, as undoubtedly some bureaucrats would go to lengths to preserve its data.


39 posted on 06/04/2013 6:53:15 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: loungitude

It isn’t being used for that purpose.. so again not really different.


40 posted on 06/04/2013 7:54:41 AM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

At which point you could sue the government for handing over your DNA to private companies and would win the case.


41 posted on 06/04/2013 7:56:04 AM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

Thank You


42 posted on 06/04/2013 11:07:30 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

I wasn’t presuming that any of the potential abuses would be carried out by private companies. Government can do it all.


43 posted on 06/04/2013 12:06:03 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Currently they cannot raise your rates on insurance.


44 posted on 06/04/2013 6:53:33 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

These are all predictions for how this could be abused in the future.


45 posted on 06/04/2013 7:27:27 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

So you are not only assuming that your DNA will be used against you but that also the government will take over all forms of insurance? let’s assume you are correct and the government takes over health insurance. The court has well defined law that says you can’t take something from someone for one thing and use it for another. Besides it wouldn’t really hold down healthcare prices, not enough people are arrested for “serious crimes” in order to do that.


46 posted on 06/05/2013 7:47:03 AM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

“So you are not only assuming that your DNA will be used against you but that also the government will take over all forms of insurance?”

Well...yes. Hasn’t the government practically done that already? Hint: See if Hobby Lobby can offer private insurance without paying for birth control.

I don’t think it is a stretch at all to contemplate a world where the HHS states that private insurance companies can’t prescribe a medicine for a patient who is genetically disposed to a life ending condition. They already dictate all kinds of stuff...and will increase their power in the very near future by penalizing people monetarily for not having ‘enough’ insurance, and penalizing them for having a ‘cadillac’ insurance plan.

Its all about control....which is why it doesn’t matter whether or not it actually holds down healthcare costs.


47 posted on 06/05/2013 9:07:03 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson