Posted on 06/03/2013 9:20:09 AM PDT by Biggirl
WASHINGTON (AP) - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
We were sold like cattle with obamacare. Once people accept this, it makes sense that the slave owner should be able to brand their property. Besides, 230+ years ain’t a bad run. Maybe the next republic based on freedom and individual liberty will do better. We will be footnoted as a valiant but failed attempt at self governance.
DNA sampling and typing make fingerprints nearly obsolete.
Besides, can a fingerprint reveal:
I would love to read their dissents and see if there is any regard for the 4th amendment in them at all.
As 'aimhigh' pointed out in #5...they may have had ulterior motives.
Well the lib judges will take your guns by by God nobody is going to swab your mouth. Its kind of bizarre.
Just as I would use my teeth for their primary function to deter a swab of my cheek, I fully intend on using my firearms for their primary function should some toady to a black robed fascist come knocking with demands that I allow confiscation of same.
Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
I’m fine with DNA upon arrest.
I am not fine with your identifying information being shared nationally.
Your arrest particulars are under the authority of the locale in which the crime or alleged crime was commited.
At the most, your crime is under the authority of a sovereign state .
What happens in Vegas ought to stay in Vegas or rightly under the Sovereign state, in which Vegas was incorporated.
If the crime is a Federal Crime, Then fine.
But, it should be a seperate data base, available only to the feds and the state data base available only to the state.
Right. And once they have your DNA, of course, it could be preserved, even replicated, and introduced into any crime scene they like.
The potential for abuse is staggering.
“And once they have your DNA, of course, it could be preserved, even replicated, and introduced into any crime scene they like.”
+1
Finally, someone who understands only ONE of the potential long term abuse scenarios.
Of course, once this becomes widely known it might serve to simply *invalidate DNA* evidence altogether.
Then, what would become of all that USEFUL for OTHER means DNA information in that DNA database?
I am still amazed that those 3 Liberal hags dissented with Scalia defending the 4th amendment. Simply amazed.
Having a decent handle on basic human nature, I would say that is what will happen. Not 'if' but 'when'.
“Just as I would use my teeth for their primary function to deter a swab of my cheek, ...”
There are many states where they make YOU swab the cheek for them to avoid bite potential. In many states it is a crime to refuse the cheek swab. If you refuse three or four burly guards will restrain you and take the sample forcibly. It happens all the time. On the somewhat bright side, in many states there is a restricton against keeping the sample. For example if you are arrested for a felony they will take a sample and run the DNA fingerprint against any open cases to see if you are wanted/fugative etc. If the search comes back negative they have to destroy the sample. Of course that can be changed with the stroke of a pen.
Yes, because DNA is the only way to identify people who have been arrested.
Of course, in Maryland, as Scalia points out it takes months for the state to process DNA from arrestees. Which basically shoots a giant hole in that justification.
An even bigger problem is that if one regards as the probability that an arbitrary person would considered a "match" with a piece of DNA evidence as 1:1,000,000, then if the police identify a suspect and build a case, and then find that DNA matches, likelihood of the match having occurred by coincidence is very small. If, however, the police start by comparing a DNA sample to those of a million people who have been arrested and find a match, the likelihood of the match having occurred by coincidence is much higher. Even if the DNA didn't come from any of the people whose samples on file, comparing against enough people could easily turn up a match.
Perhaps DNA should handled under copyright laws.
Our morning drive show reported this morning that the Federal DOT was taking DNA swabs and blood at apparent roadblocks in St Clair Co. Alabama.
Pell City Police chief confirmed that off duty County deputies were used by Fed Dot to man the road blocks.
DNA samples were apparently “voluntary”, as one witness said she was offered 60 bucks for blood and saliva while another declined blood but was paid 10 bucks for saliva.
Nothing to see here folks, move along. After all it was “voluntary”
They can get their saliva sample when I “spit my last breath at thee”.
Otherwise, I won’t detail their other sampling options.... but I will allow the insinuation... let’s just say if these LEOs want my DNA sample they can swab their wives’ and their daughters’ tonsils.
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.