IGX

Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees

UPDATED: 06/03/2013 08:17:43 AM MDTThe Associated Press
WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court says police can legally take DNA without a warrant from those arrested in hopes of using it to solve old cases.
The justices, on a 5-4 vote, say taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven, does not violate the Constitution.



Read more: Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/sitemap/ci_23 ... z2VAJ3Atlh

“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,” conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.

At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King’s DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had “a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches.”

But the high court’s decision reverses that ruling, which will likely allow states to resume and expand the programs. 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.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Taking a sample using a swab of the cheek is "like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure," Kennedy said.

King's right under the U.S. Constitutional Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had therefore not been violated, he added.

Like fingerprints, DNA is used for identification, and is not by itself evidence of a crime, Kennedy said. There is a legitimate government interest in knowing the identity of the person arrested, he added.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 8742.story

There was never any doubt about the purpose of this law, which is similar to laws adopted by 28 states and the federal government: to solve cold cases. This is why Justice Alito, at the oral argument, called the case perhaps the most important criminal-procedure case of the decade. The Maryland law makes its purpose explicit: “collecting and testing DNA samples” is designed to be “as part of an official investigation into a crime.”

The problem, as Justice Scalia notes in his eloquent and devastating dissent, is that the Court has held repeatedly that suspicionless searches are not allowed solely on the grounds that the search might be useful to solve other crimes; instead, there has to be some independent goal (such as identification of the suspect) that can be distinguished from ordinary law enforcement. That Court precedent is why Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion barely mentions the goal of solving cold cases; instead, Kennedy pretends that the purpose of the law is simply to identify the criminal in question, much as a fingerprint would.
http://news.yahoo.com/damning-dissent-s ... tAD4SCT8P7

johno wrote:

There was never any doubt about the purpose of this law, which is similar to laws adopted by 28 states and the federal government: to solve cold cases. This is why Justice Alito, at the oral argument, called the case perhaps the most important criminal-procedure case of the decade. The Maryland law makes its purpose explicit: “collecting and testing DNA samples” is designed to be “as part of an official investigation into a crime.”

The problem, as Justice Scalia notes in his eloquent and devastating dissent, is that the Court has held repeatedly that suspicionless searches are not allowed solely on the grounds that the search might be useful to solve other crimes; instead, there has to be some independent goal (such as identification of the suspect) that can be distinguished from ordinary law enforcement. That Court precedent is why Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion barely mentions the goal of solving cold cases; instead, Kennedy pretends that the purpose of the law is simply to identify the criminal in question, much as a fingerprint would.
http://news.yahoo.com/damning-dissent-s ... tAD4SCT8P7

Terry B. wrote:If the police were allowed to knock down the door of anybody's home and demand a DNA test without a conviction or warrant they could probably crack a few old cases and the world would be a safer place. If you aren't a bad guy, you don't have anything to fear.

Terry B. wrote:If the police were allowed to knock down the door of anybody's home and demand a DNA test without a conviction or warrant they could probably crack a few old cases and the world would be a safer place. If you aren't a bad guy, you don't have anything to fear.

A community is outraged over weekend road blocks in St. Clair county. A research firm was collecting DNA samples as part of a National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration funded study aimed at reducing impaired driving.

Off-duty deputies were paid to assist with the roadblocks. Anyone who stopped at one of four roadblocks Friday or Saturday nights were asked if they were willing to give samples of DNA.

Herv100 wrote:

Terry B. wrote:If the police were allowed to knock down the door of anybody's home and demand a DNA test without a conviction or warrant they could probably crack a few old cases and the world would be a safer place. If you aren't a bad guy, you don't have anything to fear.

Nice Turd/John McCain impersonation

Some people are raising questions about traffic stops in Saint Clair County where drivers were asked for DNA and blood samples. This occurred at multiple locations across the county Friday and Saturday.

Off duty St. Clair County Sheriff's deputies were taking part in the program. It's was a voluntary survey conducted by a Maryland company, Pacific Institute and Research Evaluation. The survey was paid for the National Highway Safety Administration.* Lt. Freddie Turrentine with the St. Clair County Sheriff's Office said this was a voluntary program and no driver's personal information was requested.

Ed Zachary wrote:Uncle Sam has had my DNA for years so I'm pretty much fucked. Which is why I prefer rape by instrumentation and I only ejaculate at the dump site after a few weeks of laying low.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:We're doing a survey....yeah that's it.

Some people are raising questions about traffic stops in Saint Clair County where drivers were asked for DNA and blood samples. This occurred at multiple locations across the county Friday and Saturday.

Off duty St. Clair County Sheriff's deputies were taking part in the program. It's was a voluntary survey conducted by a Maryland company, Pacific Institute and Research Evaluation. The survey was paid for the National Highway Safety Administration.* Lt. Freddie Turrentine with the St. Clair County Sheriff's Office said this was a voluntary program and no driver's personal information was requested.

http://www.wsfa.com/story/22554531/al-g ... roadblocks

PIRE, or Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, is a national nonprofit public health research institute funded mostly by federal science grants and contracts with centers in eight U.S. cities.