:lol: Haven't had the wacky tobacky since my senior year of college thank you very much.

 

So like three weeks ago?

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.

 

Excellent point!

 

My fascination with DNA is this, Hal the Super Computer is going to spit out a lot of results like, "we do not have a DNA crime match for you, but we have matches for 3 people related to you, two on your mothers sides and one on your fathers side." Then, the police are going to end up with DNA warrants for everyone under the sun and the database will grow and grow and grow.

 

Or this one, years after you are dead your great grandson gets arrested and they figure out that you...

So like three weeks ago?

 

Try 5 years chief....

Getslow, what are your personal thoughts on the decision?

 

I think the dissent nails the problem pretty well.

 

I understand how easy it is to view this as a minimal intrusion that helped catch a rapist. It's almost a cinch to say that they cotton swabbed a guy under arrest for felony assault and now they've solved a rape case too. But Scalia is right on point when he says that 10 years from now some judge is going to have a case before her in which a guy got pulled over for speeding and gets popped something else and writes the opinion that says "We can find no significant difference between this case and Maryland v. King." The "serious offenses" distinction is ludicrous.

 

The majority opinion likens this to taking someone's fingerprints. It's not. If you get arrested for punching a guy at a bar, the cops have no reason to then go to your house and search it in order to find evidence of a robbery. That would be absurdly illegal. For the court to hold that one's own body isn't entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as your home seems strange to me.

I think the dissent nails the problem pretty well.

 

I understand how easy it is to view this as a minimal intrusion that helped catch a rapist. It's almost a cinch to say that they cotton swabbed a guy under arrest for felony assault and now they've solved a rape case too. But Scalia is right on point when he says that 10 years from now some judge is going to have a case before her in which a guy got pulled over for speeding and gets popped something else and writes the opinion that says "We can find no significant difference between this case and Maryland v. King." The "serious offenses" distinction is ludicrous.

 

The majority opinion likens this to taking someone's fingerprints. It's not. If you get arrested for punching a guy at a bar, the cops have no reason to then go to your house and search it in order to find evidence of a robbery. That would be absurdly illegal. For the court to hold that one's own body isn't entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as your home seems strange to me.

 

Thanks.

 

I lean with the majority on this decision but I certainly see where the dissent is coming from and I agree this is the tip of the iceberg.

 

Add the DNA database to the Facial Recognition Database to other databases we don't even know exist and 10 years from now the government with have access to almost our every move.

I think the dissent nails the problem pretty well.

 

I understand how easy it is to view this as a minimal intrusion that helped catch a rapist. It's almost a cinch to say that they cotton swabbed a guy under arrest for felony assault and now they've solved a rape case too. But Scalia is right on point when he says that 10 years from now some judge is going to have a case before her in which a guy got pulled over for speeding and gets popped something else and writes the opinion that says "We can find no significant difference between this case and Maryland v. King." The "serious offenses" distinction is ludicrous.

 

The majority opinion likens this to taking someone's fingerprints. It's not. If you get arrested for punching a guy at a bar, the cops have no reason to then go to your house and search it in order to find evidence of a robbery. That would be absurdly illegal. For the court to hold that one's own body isn't entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as your home seems strange to me.

 

If you get arrested for punching someone at a bar do they take your fingerprints? If so is it routine to run those through a database to see if they are connected to other crimes? I don't know--I was under the assumption that they did.

If you get arrested for punching someone at a bar do they take your fingerprints? If so is it routine to run those through a database to see if they are connected to other crimes? I don't know--I was under the assumption that they did.

 

I know they'll use your prints to make sure you are who you say you are. They'll also use that info to search for outstanding warrants. I don't know the extent to which they'll randomly compare your fingerprints to latent prints already in the system taken from the scenes of unsolved cases.

I had a whole post about fingerprints before AJG made exactly the same point I was going to. Glad I read the rest of the thread before I posted it. I do know that fingerprints go into a database and can be used in other crimes.

 

I see some of the concerns of the dissent but I do lean towards the majority on this issue.

Maybe I'm numb to all the "loss of liberty" points of view. Where I work, the Indiana Gaming Commission fingerprints us, basically "mug shots" us, and literally check our credit, employment, and criminal histories back to birth. There are cameras literally all over the place, and audio recordings as well. If I get a speeding ticket or kill someone, either way I have to report it to the on-site, gun-totin' Gaming Officers within 3 days or my gaming license and I will lose my job. And I don't even work in the casino.

Why wait for a crime? DNA samples don't bother most law abiding citizens. Swab away on mine.

Drivers license - must submit a DNA sample?

Definitely should be a requirement to receive public assistance.

 

What is the slippery slope for those with nothing to hide?

I think the dissent nails the problem pretty well.

 

I understand how easy it is to view this as a minimal intrusion that helped catch a rapist. It's almost a cinch to say that they cotton swabbed a guy under arrest for felony assault and now they've solved a rape case too. But Scalia is right on point when he says that 10 years from now some judge is going to have a case before her in which a guy got pulled over for speeding and gets popped something else and writes the opinion that says "We can find no significant difference between this case and Maryland v. King." The "serious offenses" distinction is ludicrous.

 

The majority opinion likens this to taking someone's fingerprints. It's not. If you get arrested for punching a guy at a bar, the cops have no reason to then go to your house and search it in order to find evidence of a robbery. That would be absurdly illegal. For the court to hold that one's own body isn't entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as your home seems strange to me.

 

I don't see any other way to look at this issue . DNA swabbing is an invasive approach to collect data from someone who has not been convicted of a crime . If someone can't see the difference of finger prints and inserting an object into a mouth I give up.

Thanks.

 

I lean with the majority on this decision but I certainly see where the dissent is coming from and I agree this is the tip of the iceberg.

 

Add the DNA database to the Facial Recognition Database to other databases we don't even know exist and 10 years from now the government with have access to almost our every move.

 

So you believe ones home is subject to more privacy than their person?

Why wait for a crime? DNA samples don't bother most law abiding citizens. Swab away on mine.

Drivers license - must submit a DNA sample?

Definitely should be a requirement to receive public assistance.

 

What is the slippery slope for those with nothing to hide?

 

I'm not willing give up freedoms or liberty for a false sense of security. Whether I have anything to hide is irrelevant . Its none of your or the governments business. I can think of multiple fights this rulings ignores. Right to privacy or the the right not to self incriminet one self. The government should need much more probable cause for such an invasive procedure .

 

These civil liberties are where I part from conservatives and have redefined as more a libertarian. How people who want less government intruision in their lives can stand idle on topics like this confuses me. This ruling just further proves why Scalia is one of my favorite Supreme court justices.

Edited June 5, 201313 yr by LIPTON BASH

So you believe ones home is subject to more privacy than their person?

Are you against finger printing and taken photos of those arrested for crimes as well?

I'm not willing give up freedoms or liberty for a false sense of security. Whether I have anything to hide is irrelevant . Its none of your or the governments business. I can think of multiple fights this rulings ignores. Right to privacy or the the right not to self incriminet one self. The government should need much more probable cause for such an invasive procedure .

 

These civil liberties are where I part from conservatives and have redefined as more a libertarian. How people who want less government intruision in their lives can stand idle on topics like this confuses me. This ruling just further proves why Scalia is one of my favorite Supreme court justices.

It would no more incriminate you than a possible finger print match left behind at the scene of a murder.

 

Invasive? Don't think a q-tip rubbed on my cheek is invasive...call me when they start taking DNA like a Proctologist, then you'll have an Invasive procedure...:Lol2: