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.
Arrested. Not even charged, let alone convicted of a crime.
“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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Shameful display by some of the "conservative" justices. And a stalwart defense of liberty by Scalia & the three Lefties.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
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
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.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
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.
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
You've got to love it when the Supreme Court, supposedly the defenders of the Constitution, follow the Feinstein approach to the rule of law: "I feel, therefore I legislate".
In this case "It would be nice, so the spirit of the law doesn't really matter, we'll say it's fine."
First the Obamacare fuck up, now this. And did a challenge to Indiana's supreme court ruling that it's illegal to resist an unlawful search ever take place? Did I get that right?
"Gentle in what you do, Firm in how you do it"
- Buck Brannaman
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
That's why when it's used to solve a crime, it will go to SCOTUS and probably be shot down. This decision is little more than a subsidy for lawyers.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
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.
I almost swallowed this troll hook deep into my belly like a starving bullhead.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party
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.
Let's then expand the definition of "detainee" to...anybody stopped by the police.
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.
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
Stop your simpleton. Scalia's dissent provides the blueprint for the inevitable reversal when DNA collected this way is actually used for a conviction. Take a deep breath, and try and untwist your panties.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
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.
No wonder the trains never run on time.
Kazuya Mishima wrote:they can pry the bacon from my cold dead hand.
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.
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.
