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:

 

So your fine with police searching your home as well without more probable cause .

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

 

Neither are invasive and are minimal tools used to identify a subject. I do think if someone is found not guilty or charges dropped it all should be destroyed .

 

I just don't get how we as a nation don't care about civil libeties anymore. We live more in fear instead of wanting freedom. Very sad age to live in . I don't want to give up another freedom for a false sense of security and to add to the ever building police state.

So your fine with police searching your home as well without more probable cause .

My home and taking my fingerprints or some other way to ID me are COMPLETELY different.

Neither are invasive and are minimal tools used to identify a subject. I do think if someone is found not guilty or charges dropped it all should be destroyed.

I would agree with this in most cases.

 

I just don't get how we as a nation don't care about civil libeties anymore. We live more in fear instead of wanting freedom. Very sad age to live in . I don't want to give up another freedom for a false sense of security and to add to the ever building police state.

I completely agree about civil liberties not being abused, I just don't think that any and all contact with the government or law enforcement is a loss of liberties the way that you do.

Said it here before and I will say it again. Take DNA at birth. Log it in to a database. No crimes=No worries. Simple. I truly believe the crime rate would be reduced and convictions would go up. Lets get the thugs off the streets. I will be the first in line to give mine.

Said it here before and I will say it again. Take DNA at birth. Log it in to a database. No crimes=No worries. Simple. I truly believe the crime rate would be reduced and convictions would go up. Lets get the thugs off the streets. I will be the first in line to give mine.

 

I would be glad to get in that line.

 

As far as home searches go I believe that it takes WAY WAY WAY too much red tape in the current process.

Cops know where the meth labs are and are powerless to search the homes.

: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.

 

My thoughts exactly.

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.

 

I'm not with you on a lot of things, but this I totally agree with.

 

Folks don't want any part of gun registration, but DNA registration is no biggie?

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.

 

Yep. And ten years from then everyone will have a chip implanted at birth.

 

 

Well, maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, but it wouldn't shock me.

STRONGLY opposed to this. This isn't a slippery slope, it's a very steep slope with an oil spill down the side that we will go careening off of.

Maybe I'm numb to all the "loss of liberty" points of view. Where I work' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

There's a huge difference there. You have chosen to work there. That would be the same with me giving the ok to nationwide drug testing because my employer requires it.

Scalia's dissent is great. But the opening two paragraphs are all anyone has to read:

 

The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incrimi- nating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and with- out exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspi- cionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.

It is obvious that no such noninvestigative motive exists in this case. The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court’s comparison of Maryland’s DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today’s opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work.

 

I can't see how anyone who says they are for a small government, defends the Constitution, considers themselves a conservative and/or libertarian could be for this obvious intrusion.

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.

 

Scalia's dissent is great. But the opening two paragraphs are all anyone has to read:

 

The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incrimi- nating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and with- out exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspi- cionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.

It is obvious that no such noninvestigative motive exists in this case. The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court’s comparison of Maryland’s DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today’s opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work.

 

I can't see how anyone who says they are for a small government, defends the Constitution, considers themselves a conservative and/or libertarian could be for this obvious intrusion.

 

I can. It's folks who live their lives cowered in fear, terrified by the next big thing that comes across the crawl on their favorite 24-7 TV news channel. It's folks who don't like sweating the small details. Folks unwilling to cope with reality; those who would rather construct their own little reality bubble because it's easier to deal with than real life.

I can. It's folks who live their lives cowered in fear, terrified by the next big thing that comes across the crawl on their favorite 24-7 TV news channel. It's folks who don't like sweating the small details. Folks unwilling to cope with reality; those who would rather construct their own little reality bubble because it's easier to deal with than real life.

 

Man, that's quite a leap. I just want the bad guys to get caught.

Man, that's quite a leap. I just want the bad guys to get caught.

 

Everyone wants the bad guys to get caught. Intruding upon our basic civil liberties isn't the way to do it though. I would hope our basic freedoms would still mean something in this day and age, but maybe that's asking too much of today's society? :idunno: