FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“for a serious offense”
Be prepared to interpret this down to jaywalking over the next few years.
Another article on the SCOTUS decision on DNA testing.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
The 5 no doubt feared some perp getting sprung only to discover years later he was guilty of 25 rapes.
Breyer’s position shifting after being the victim of a home invasion?
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.
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...
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.
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.
“...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.
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?
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.
“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.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea obviously trusts Government FAR more than I do.
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
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.