June 4, 201313 yr WASHINGTON -- A narrowly divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can collect DNA from people arrested but not yet convicted of serious crimes, a tool that more than half the states already use to help crack unsolved crimes. The case, described by Justice Samuel Alito as "the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades," represented a classic test between modern crime-fighting technology and centuries-old privacy rights. In the end, the justices had to balance the benefits and the intrusion of a simple cheek swab -- and the considerable benefits won out. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority's 5-4 decision, in which one liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, concurred. The key to the ruling, Kennedy said, is "reasonableness." "DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure," Kennedy said. "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 wrote an angry dissent for himself and three liberal justices, charging that the decision will lead to an increased use of DNA testing in violation of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches. "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," Scalia warned. "This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA whenever you fly on an airplane." USA TODAY
June 4, 201313 yr Author Is this progress and a good think for America or Big Brother sliding down the slope?
June 4, 201313 yr I see nothing wrong with it. The fingerprints of people are taken and entered into a database whether they are convicted of the crime for which they were arrested. I don't see where this is any different. I don't, however, think that you should have to give up your DNA so it can be run through a database for background checks and such.
June 4, 201313 yr The four dissenters: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and... Scalia? I love that. Talk about an unlikely grouping. And what's more: his dissent is magnificent. Nobody on the bench in the last 40 years could write an inspired, scathing dissent quite like Scalia. "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." You can read the entire opinion here: Maryland v. King Scalia's dissent begins at page 33.
June 4, 201313 yr Can someone help me out on this....Is this any time a person is arrested, or for specific crimes only? If I get arrested for possession, they aren't going to swab me are they?
June 4, 201313 yr The four dissenters: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and... Scalia? I love that. Talk about an unlikely grouping. And what's more: his dissent is magnificent. Nobody on the bench in the last 40 years could write an inspired, scathing dissent quite like Scalia. "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." You can read the entire opinion here: Maryland v. King Scalia's dissent begins at page 33. I, too , enjoyed the dissent. "royal inspection." Nice.
June 4, 201313 yr Author Can someone help me out on this....Is this any time a person is arrested, or for specific crimes only? If I get arrested for possession, they aren't going to swab me are they? Interesting way to phrase the question, I see you are for the legalization of marijuana. They said serious crimes but I don't think "serious" is clearly defined and it opens the door for swabs for all all arrests. So to answer your question, in the not so distant future probably yes.
June 4, 201313 yr Can someone help me out on this....Is this any time a person is arrested, or for specific crimes only? If I get arrested for possession, they aren't going to swab me are they? Without going back and re-reading I THINK it has to be a felony arrest.
June 4, 201313 yr Interesting way to phrase the question, I see you are for the legalization of marijuana. They said serious crimes but I don't think "serious" is clearly defined and it opens the door for swabs for all all arrests. So to answer your question, in the not so distant future probably yes. :lol2: To the first part, I am for the legalization of it, but don't smoke it, and won't unless it becomes legal. As to the rest, if that's the case, I'm vehemently against this. It seems to violate a person's rights. Why do they need my DNA for a possession charge? Has nothing to do with the charges I'd be facing, thus it shouldn't be allowed.
June 4, 201313 yr Author :lol2: To the first part, I am for the legalization of it, but don't smoke it, and won't unless it becomes legal. And next you are probably going to tell us you are Pro-Police...
June 4, 201313 yr Can someone help me out on this....Is this any time a person is arrested, or for specific crimes only? If I get arrested for possession, they aren't going to swab me are they? There gonna do more than swab you, lol.
June 4, 201313 yr :lol2: To the first part, I am for the legalization of it, but don't smoke it, and won't unless it becomes legal. As to the rest, if that's the case, I'm vehemently against this. It seems to violate a person's rights. Why do they need my DNA for a possession charge? Has nothing to do with the charges I'd be facing, thus it shouldn't be allowed. Agreed. If it was for any crime we're going to see siblings of suspects pulled over for speeding just to get access to DNA.
June 4, 201313 yr And next you are probably going to tell us you are Pro-Police... :lol: Haven't had the wacky tobacky since my senior year of college thank you very much.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.