A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.
"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.
But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
16 comments:
complete bull crap. This should not be allowed into the person is found guilty. We gotta remember that we are innocent until proven guilty. if you were innocent and that is collected it is in the database is forever.
fingerprints are and have been taken at the time of arrest of a suspect for a long time with no opposition as to the constitutionality of the process. That was an integral part of the decision. DNA testing is just a more accurate test to determine identification. So I guess you would want the police to no longer fingerprint also?
There are only so many uses for fingerprints and what you can or can't do with them when on file 10:58. DNA on the other hand can be used and or manipulated in many illicit ways in the hands of the wrong person.
This a dangerous precedent that will be abused. You will be data based and categorized based on genetic makeup. This will be used for Obama Care to deny service or charge higher premiums based on genetic disposition.
nothing to fear if you're innocent.
Long overdue, good idea.
Just wait until the confiscated DNA is used by the police to frame someone.
Great idea, no different than fingerprinting.
it may not be in violation of the fourth amendment, but definitely against the fifth...
if dna will be used to identify one as the perpetrator of a crime, than refusal under self incrimination is applicable.
i am no lawyer, but i firmly believe in the constitution.
tom t
did you read the article. There is a lot to see her if you were arrested. this happens when you were arrested not when you are found guilty
Anonymous said...
nothing to fear if you're innocent.
June 4, 2013 at 4:00 AM
People still believe that crap?
Long overdue!
"nothing to fear if you're innocent."
Sure, just like you have nothing to fear from the I.R.S. if you have done nothing wrong but file for tax -exempt status because you want to print up and pass out pocket constitutions.....oh, wait.
Are you really that stupid? Do you seriously believe the STATE is a bunch of good people? The state is run by people, people are fallen sinners, therefore the state is bound to be run by fallen sinners who WILL DO EVIL if they can...
Real life rapists would have been set free, if the ruling went the other way. MD has enough evil people out there without letting more rapists out of the cage.
10:58, Great question! Was fingerprinting ever Constitutional? Maybe not. I agree with taking information from those proven guilty for future tracking, and agree that taking DNA is a great police tool, but the Fourth Amendment really says that there is a time and a place for these things. Maybe it's time we stood back and looked at the Constitutionality of both.
Real life rapists? As opposed to? Actors in a movie? what?
Post a Comment