Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest

Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest

usnews.nbcnews.com

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, as the story goes on to say, if it's just to catch the "bad guys", then I'm ok with that.

Scalia, who typically sides with the court’s conservatives, expressed deep reservations about DNA swabbing at the oral argument. The purpose of the practice, he acknowledged, was “to catch the bad guys.” But he added: “The Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way.”

From the above link as well.

But is that likely? What will they do with the information if you are not charged or convicted? Keep it, like fingerprints?

What say you, ATS?

On the other hand, how many times have they picked up a "suspect" in a crime, release him/her only later on to find DNA linking them to the crime?
Meantime, they had committed more crimes.

usnews.nbcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Demoncreeper


I'm kind of on the fence about this. While it's good to be able to trace crime scene stuff, my big fear is entrapment down the line.

The Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way.

Any judge that says this should be removed from the bench. The Fourth Amendment is there for a reason.

Originally posted by buster2010

The Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way.

Any judge that says this should be removed from the bench. The Fourth Amendment is there for a reason.

Absolutely agree.
I used to be in law enforcement, here in Canada. I think this is too far. What is wrong with fingerprints? Don't give me that 21st century crap. Finger prints are as unique to an individual as dna. Yes, fingerprints can be "planted". But it isn't as easy as T.V. makes it. DNA can be "planted" almost easier...haha. A hair, a little blood...

reply to post by Demoncreeper


This will not be used for good. I love how everything is done to catch the bad guys yet 9/10 it's used to abuse innocent civilians. It's like how police departments use forfeiture to loot people doing nothing wrong when initially the ability to do so was because of drug boogie men.

How about they investigate the cases they already have instead of adding our dna to their database. So even if you aren't convicted of a crime you are still violated forever and your information taken? Ugh the sinking ship is really getting ridiculous these days.

reply to post by LadyofGlass


It really seems like it, from the standpoint of a Canadian. We aren't perfect, either, Harper is quietly handing our country over to corporations and other countries...
That is the doom and gloom of it all.

Its a crooked system...for sure. I think it was Ben Franklin that said: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." or words to that effect...

Seems like a fitting quote here...

reply to post by aboutface


I'm on the fence too. I suppose it would be just about as easy to plant DNA evidence another way though. DNA evidence is creepy to me because it seems people think it's all that matters now. So there could be a TON of evidence that someone didn't commit a crime, but a jury sees DNA evidence at the scene and boom - guilty. There's also the flip side where there is an airtight case but no DNA evidence and the person gets let off. Then there are all the people freed after DNA evidence gets introduced. It's a weird one.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


This doesn't surprise me. More and more I believe theories one might consider when you learn about Operation Paperclip We are becoming a police regulated state. It is a matter of time before we will need to offer DNA samples to fly.

This is just one of those things where the stronger emotions will always win. You might have a fear that this could be abused but the stronger emotion is the anger and hatred of all those people who want to see "justice" done.

In plain English. If it reveals a criminal, it doesn't matter if it's unethical (and/or potentially dangerous). The public will support it.

reply to post by Demoncreeper

What "bad guys"? The OP said "arrested but not convicted of a crime".

Once again the Supreme Court is wrong. I mean really really WRONG.

Theres a LOT more information in our DNA.

Scalia’s siding with the liberals reflects his growing concern over the past five years about privacy,...

Wait a second, upholding the Constitution and protecting our rights is considered "liberal"? I thought that "conservatives" the Tea Partiers, were all about the Constitution?

like others, I'm torn on this one.

I'm not sure the taking of DNA is really a problem, as much as how the information is kept, who has access and how it's used.

If it's used as a way to identify criminals, that's OK in my mind. If it's accessible for any other reason I have an issue with that.

I think overall I'm OK with this, but Congress needs to take note and pass legislation controlling how it's used and by whom.

Really easy to commit a crime now, just get a strand of hair from someone you know has been arrested before, and if you haven't been arrested they wont be able to match your DNA at the scene with anything since you're not in the database but your "patsy" is... And since they would have an arrest record blame would automatically go to them. Not thadvocating committing crimes, but just trying to point out how this could be abused

I'm not "torn" at all on this issue.

The police have a job. And we pay them well to do it. It requires work, and evidence gathering,
and warrants for searches and wire-taps, and data-base searches, and cooperation between
agencies....DO THE WORK. And do it in a constitutionally LEGAL way.

And for God's sake elect some judges who can read and interpret a few pages of constitutional text!

Keep your hands out of my pockets, your wiretaps off my phone, your cotton swabs out of my mouth
and you damn needles out of my arm UNLESS a judge in good faith BELIEVES that there is a
damn good reason for it!

reply to post by Demoncreeper


I see this as a DNA capture, What if your DNA is patented without your consent. You are a slave to the patent holder.

The biggest issue is trust. It's just that simple. If you believe in allowing things like this to be done, you have to trust someone.

And sadly, we are used to trusting people with big things like this in our society. We stop to get something to eat without a thought as to what's in it. We trust our ISPs with information that practically creates a digital diary of everything we think and say. We trust the same people not to record every word we say on the phone.

We trust judges and politicians and cops not to abuse their positions. And the simple fact of the matter is that any law can be changed, ignored, amended, misinterpreted. There is nothing protecting us from anything. It's like a lock on a window. It's a joke. Just break the window and you're in. You can put an alarm on it but if people ignore the alarm, what good is it?

And it goes on and on. If you've ever been screwed over by someone you trusted, you might know that it's a matter of time before it comes time to pay the bill. Eventually, you will always trust the wrong person too much.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Honestly, this does not seem like an unreasonable search or seizure, they're not swabbing everyone (just those that have already been seized). The Fourth Amendment does not give anyone the right to commit a crime, it is there to protect the innocent from an abuse of power. DNA swabs will go a lot further towards protecting rights by eliminating unnecessary seizures on RS- this is a vast improvement of Fourth Amendment protections, at least the way I see it, and it is not adding an unnecessary intrusion to accomplish it. Looks like a win for the good guys!

I'm against it.

Swabbing should be for serious crimes only, not just arrests. For instance, when a few hundred people are kettled at a (i.e. G20) demonstration and arrested en masse, I don't think they need to be processed in this manner.

When fingerprinting became all the rage in Canada (yeah, I'm that old), police came to public schools and all the students were treated to the inky fingers routine because it was so damn new and cool.

Now, cheek swabs are 'the bomb' thanks to the CSI series. What's next down the pipe? Cheek swabs in the hospital for newborns?

Holy database, Batman!

The media is using the term "serious crimes". What is considered a serious crime in this country? Getting pulled over with pot in your car? Running a red light? Running from the police? Drunk in public? Domestic dispute? Driver license expired? Not a lot of transparency here but everyone keeps on voting and keeps on falling for the same old trick. This also arises a lot of ethical concerns as technology improves because your DNA is NOT a fingerprint. Soon they will be able to determine many many things just by running DNA through a computer. DNA... the makeup of the individual. Well lets see shall we, I get in a fight at a bar because I am defending a female from getting slapped by a drunkard. The police swab me and they run my DNA through a machine. The DNA tests come back and determine that I have a greater chance than most of becoming addicted to drugs or becoming a murderer. From there they send me to classes and therapy when all along all I was doing is defending a girl from getting slapped. Just a situation, but I AM PISSED. Welcome to the New World Order people. Slow progressive legislation is a bitch.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
[ What is wrong with fingerprints? Don't give me that 21st century crap. Finger prints are as unique to an individual as dna.

you don't get fingerprints from a lot of evidence - you get hair, or semen, or skin or blood or some other body material.