Supreme Court Rules DNA samples okay to take without Warrant

General General Discussion
1

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/supreme-court-says-police-can-take-dna-samples.html?_r=0

From the article:

[b][i]Police may take DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The federal government and 28 states authorize the practice, and law enforcement officials say it is a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes. But the court said the testing was justified by a different reason: to identify the suspect in custody.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, “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.”

Justice Antonin Scalia summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move signaling deep disagreement. He accused the majority of an unsuccessful sleight of hand, one that “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” The point of DNA testing as it is actually practiced, he said, is to solve cold cases, not to identify the suspect in custody.

But the Fourth Amendment forbids searches without reasonable suspicion to gather evidence about an unrelated crime, he said, a point the majority did not dispute.

“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Justice Scalia said from the bench. [/i][/b]

-End snippet from article-

National DNA database won’t be too far off- no way for that to be abused; no worries, nothing to see here…

Yay! :bad:

No- taking a physical DNA sample is not like fingerprinting. WTF?

Thanks a bunch SCOTUS!

2

DNA is more reliable than fingerprinting and if you are arrested for a felony or a crime against a person I support it. We do it up here for felons. Why would any person be against this criminals and tin foil types aside? Criminal gets arrested and put in a database so the next time he commits a crime its easier to ID him and take him back off the street. T
Good move SCOTUS!

3

I think what the supremes are missing is that DNA is not just a fingerprint. It is a rosetta stone for your whole genetic being. Adding it to a government database is a huge concern for me. No argument upon conviction but arresting someone is different. What constitutes a serious crime? What about familial DNA? Should I get arrested for a crime I committed that you figured out because you got a DNA sample from my brother when he was arrested?

In general, I see this as yet another erosion of 4th amendment protections. Interesting how “small government” republican nominees were for this…

4

The Crooks are getting smarter by covering their faces, wearing gloves and over sized shoes to mask means of identifying them.

Having solved alleged crimes I investigated by recovering blood, hair, spit, Cigarette butt evidence I can see some good coming from the collection of DNA.

Not a blank check by no means and the crimes were DNA is taken should be from a narrow range of offenses and strictly regulated.

5

The road to tyranny is paved with one stone at a time.

The “supreme” court laid another one down.

6

DNA is like all your health records, your family ties and your weaknesses all laid bare. A lot more than a finger print tells you. Convicted felons I could see, just arrests not so much.

How long does a DNA test take to verify it against a database? I always thought that was a longer process, one that wouldn’t be very viable for “Who is in the drunk tank”.

At least you have to be arrested and they can’t just walk around and demand samples… It is probably only a matter of time before a DNA sample is taken at birth. (As an aside, I’ve heard that one big untalked about issue with DNA databases that get everyones DNA is that is starts to get really easy to tell who is and ain’t the father of babies- and the awkward issues that ensue.)

7

Unreal man. What if its not a felony? What if you’re just a suspect? Tin foil? Just another way for the govt power to increase without question but I’m sure you disagree.

8

Problem is being arrested for a felony isn’t the same thing as being a felon.

Now if you have a CONVICTED FELON, then I could support the taking of DNA.

And if you don’t understand the objections, go read what Justice Scalia said in the OP.

9

And they used to burn their fingerprints off with acid and wear masks back in the 30s. The fact that criminals make it hard to catch them is NO REASON to erode the rights of everyone else.

10

Only (1) post into this thread and you are already calling those who might be against this “tin foil types” and “Criminals” jeeze man lighten up a bit…

Collecting and keeping a physical sample of DNA- you know a complete code of "you" is beyond mere fingerprinting or evidence collection.

I see the positives that will come out of this; I really do. But the potential for abuse outweighs it in my opinion.

The same framework could be used to institute mandatory DNA swabbing for any contact with Law Enforcement. And most likely will in the near future.

I mean, someone could (And will) make the case that we need to swab everyone and cross-reference it with a terrorist DNA database- KEEPING us “safe” from those terrorists and all.

Why not have TSA do a swab- you wanna fly, lets make sure you aren’t a criminal…

The list of potential abuses is long and scary.

The future consequences of this ruling and how LE/lawmakers will expand upon it is what worries me most.

Not sure about you but I see a lot of ways this can be abused. A LOT.

Especially once they start swabbing for any and all reasons they can- pushing the limits as to what is “okay” and “Justifies” the collection of DNA- it will happen.

It’s not like any LEO’s have planted evidence to help get a conviction before right? There is absolutely no possible way for anyone in a position of authority & having access to physical DNA to abuse this power either- nope, nadda, zip zilch…

11

I have a great interest in this topic and both its intended and unintended consequences. The ramifications of this decision are enormous. Accordingly, let’s keep it on track and productive.

12

I am concerned about this as well. Considering the drive for Obamacare and similar expansions of government into health care, what’s to REALLY stop insurance companies from accessing your DNA profiles? It’s very much in their interest to find out who’s predisposed for expensive conditions. With that info, they could make up excuses as to why you can be denied coverage. You may not even know why you’re being denied. Tin foil? Maybe. But we’re headed down a dark path when our legal protections are diminished in any way.

13

While the “supreme” court might say such a collection of personal information is constitutional, the court does not say that such collection may not be criminalized.

However, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for the federal or any state legislature to forbid police from doing this. It might make the idiots look “soft” on crime.

14

Another compartment in Pandora’s box has been opened.

No doubt that many crimes can be solved by this, undoubtedly there are peoples who’s lives will be saved by this.

However, the same thing could be said of personal GPS monitoring of every single person in the US. Total and complete gun registration. Complete ban on all alcoholic drinks. Taking all children away from their parents and raising them collectively in a central processing center so they all get an “education”.

The problem is it can and WILL be abused and miss-used. Crooked LE will use it to frame people, inattentive or malicious lab technicians will mix up tests, data will get breached. You think it is bad that someone gets your credit card numbers, wait until they get your entire gene sequence. What if some enterprising young scientists decide that they are going to go data mining in criminal databases to see if there are any “genetic markers” common to a large percentage of criminals. Suddenly, instead of racial profiling, we have genetic profiling.

This is bad in every way shape and form. The potential negative effects of this FAR outweigh the potential benefits.

Not to mention the fact it is only another stepping stone towards a totalitarian police state. Some Leftist Nazi Gattaca Dystopian nightmare waiting to happen.

15

“Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.” -Justice Scalia, dissenting

The whole opinion is worth reading.

16

i don’t understand your need to get away with something so badly that you don’t want your brother’s dna to implicate you.

17

Bingo.

DNA evidence in the Duke LaCrosse case provided results that were contrary to what the prosecutor was hoping for so he deliberately suppressed it.

If a lab technician didn’t blow the whistle on Nifong, all of those people would likely have had their futures and lives destroyed.

18

who cares about those parts? does the government have so much time money and resources that they’re going to sequence your personal genome and lay all your weaknesses and family ties to bear? you’re gonna have a hard time and cash to even get your health care provider to do so in the near future. and yes you will get your healthcare provider to do so because it is the single most beneficial procedure for your health and self interest will always win out.

increase power? how does this increase the government’s power? in which ways are you specifying that it increases the government’s power? does it not actually increase their liability? not only do they now have to collect all the dna, but watch it, guard it, then let it be used by both sides of the judicial system (as it already does).

19

Isn’t that exactly the thing what ObamaCare is supposed to prevent. Stopping Insurance companies from denying you because you have some expensive condition.

20

Apparently there are some who would consider Scalia a tinfoil type.