Skip to comments.Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest
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 courts 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 Amendments 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 ...
At which point you could sue the government for handing over your DNA to private companies and would win the case.
I wasn’t presuming that any of the potential abuses would be carried out by private companies. Government can do it all.
Currently they cannot raise your rates on insurance.
These are all predictions for how this could be abused in the future.
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.
“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.
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.