Supreme Court Allows Police to Collect DNA Samples from Arrestees

In a stunning blow to liberty, the SCOTUS issued a divided opinion allowing the collection of DNA samples from people not convicted of a crime. So much for freedom.

In a 5-4 decision handed down today in the case of Maryland v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment does not prevent law enforcement officials from obtaining and testing DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious crimes. According to the majority opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito, the use of a Q-tip to swab the inside cheek of an arrested suspect “is ‘no more than an extension of methods of identification long used in dealing with persons under arrest,’” such as fingerprinting, and therefore constitutionally permissible. “In the balance of reasonableness required by the Fourth Amendment,” Kennedy’s opinion continues, “the Court must give great weight both to the significant government interest at stake in the identification of arrestees and to the unmatched potential of DNA identification to serve that interest.”

Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, strongly rejected the majority’s reasoning:

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 incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless 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.

The Supreme Court's opinion in Maryland v. King is available here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-207_d18e.pdf

Now how insane is this. Our technology is advancing more quickly than our wisdom.

Well that ought to come in handy as you collect DNA samples in the Salina Bus Station!

Cruz came out against it !

Cruz continues to NOT disappoint !

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...a-ruling-its-/

If we can't take DNA samples, then how can we in principle take fingerprints?

The DNA test is non-invasive. They aren't taking blood. It is a cotton swab from the inside of the mouth. It is no more invasive than applying ink to someone's skin and taking a print.

I can't see how one can be OK and the other not OK.

That may seem counter-intuitive, but it isn't.

Mug shots are out ...Invasion of privacy ..No fingerprints...

you are forgetting sperm sample, who know what are being done with them(Johnny)... w/o consent

you are forgetting sperm sample Originally Posted by CJOHN

We'll take a cotton swab in your ass if we need one.

If we can't take DNA samples, then how can we in principle take fingerprints?

The DNA test is non-invasive. They aren't taking blood. It is a cotton swab from the inside of the mouth. It is no more invasive than applying ink to someone's skin and taking a print.

I can't see how one can be OK and the other not OK.

That may seem counter-intuitive, but it isn't. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Fingerprints don't contain the potential information on medical conditions DNA does. A famous actress recently had her breasts removed because of what her DNA indicated.

In an era where government wants to take over healthcare (and limit costs) who the hell knows what that DNA could someday be used for? There was once, not that long ago, a government that "scientifically" measured skulls to see who they'd pop into an oven, they could have been so much more efficient with computers and DNA samples.

Mug shots are out ...Invasion of privacy ..No fingerprints... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

How about universal and involuntary measurement for facial recognition software? I understand it's proposed in the gang of 8 amnesty bill. Then they won't even have to talk to you, just film you protesting something the government does and come knock on your door.

Cruz came out against it !

Cruz continues to NOT disappoint ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

He's doing exactly what he said he would do. Pander to the extreme right wing of the Tea Party.

He is now the defacto leader of the TeaWipe movement.

How fucking fitting.

BTW -- he hasn't opened an office in central/south Texas, where "his people" live. We'll see if this charade even lasts six years!

Cruz has an office in San Antonio; which everyone knows is the de facto headquarters for Hispanics in Texas. Thank god Cruz doesn't pander to the Democrat base in Texas - you know, the voting bloc that wants amnesty, free healthcare, open borders, and more free shit for others to pay for.

found new radio station traveling. Air one

Fingerprints are taken when being booked, DNA will be allowed to be taken at the side of the road at a traffic stop if the local law enforcement so desires. Can you imagine the care that must be taken to ensure the right DNA. Or can you imagine a cardboard box with 35 samples being brought in by some patrolman at the end of his shift? Better hope that the person stopped that night with you is not in the habit of raping women.

Cruz came out against it !

Cruz continues to NOT disappoint !

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...a-ruling-its-/ Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, strongly rejected the majority’s reasoning:

. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Interesting bedfellows you have there Whirly. You Ted Cruz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Isn't life a hoot!

don't play that assumption game...