It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON — Police may take DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.
The federal government and 28 states authorize the practice, and law enforcement officials say it is a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes. But the court said the testing was justified by a different reason: to identify the suspect in custody.
Thats the exact argument they used to get it to pass. Personally, i think it is far more of an invasion than fingerprinting.
Originally posted by roadgravel
I agree with the privacy issue based on an arrest. How many people will be arrested then released uncharged just for a DNA sample. I suppose they now see DNA like a fingerprint.
Not to mention, how long until your doctor is required to take and store your DNA?
Originally posted by roadgravel
How long before DNA sample is required for any license.
Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests
How is this different than taking finger prints?
Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by hypervigilant
But DNA is considered such good evidence. At this point, all people in enforcement cannot be trusted to not plant evidence or cover up. It does happen.
Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Malcher
How is this different than taking finger prints?
As I mentioned earlier, why are fingerprints involuntarily taken. it should be up to the person to offer them to clear their name, if they so wish. That fingerprint action opens the door to this type of action.
Originally posted by noissucnoc16
Don't see the big deal.. Many people steal identities , look like other people or claim to be while the wise guy is on the lose what would a simple string of hair or spit in a cup hurt..... What do you think they're gonna do make millions of lones using people's DNA?
If you were to go for a job and they wanted to fingerprint you would refuse?
Originally posted by Malcher
Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by hypervigilant
But DNA is considered such good evidence. At this point, all people in enforcement cannot be trusted to not plant evidence or cover up. It does happen.
That would be really stupid and serve about zero purpose considering a person would loose their job and face prosecution and like i said for what purpose considering you would not know if the person has a rock solid alibi.