Supreme Court: DNA Samples Can Be Taken From Arrestees Without Warrant (1 Viewer)

[parlorcitysaint]

During the French Revolution, all it took was for one citizen to denounce another, and they were imprisoned. Of course, more severe penalties were imposed, as well.

It seems that centuries later, we're where the French were then. No conviction necessary. Just a reasonable excuse to make an arrest, and then you're being swabbed.

Any bets on how long before the entire population is "cataloged"?

you are not as equal as they are

True. If we were, then we'd be exempt from the "health care" that's been crammed down our throats.....

 

[Det. Brees]

You get your fingerprints taken when arrested

you do but the taking of you fingerprints is so your identity can be confirmed. the taking of Dan is a huge step past fingerprints.
i don't mind this so much if its after a conviction and its a violent repeat offender.

 

[JimEverett]

is DNA really any different then a fingerprint?

i would gather not, so this decision doesn't really surprise me.

if your arrested your fingerprinted, so i really don't see any different between being fingerprinted and have a dna sample taken.

I do not know if they are the same.
Det. Brees is the one who could answer this - but as the dissent notes, DNA collection is used for only one purpose right now and that is to search for other crimes. Fingerprinting is used at least for identification in addition to being used as a search for crime.
I am not sure how persuasive that argument is, but that is what the dissent wrote.

I have never really thought about fingerprints as being "searches" under the 4th Amendment. But I guess they are when they are used to search for evidence of a crime.

Interesting stuff.

 

[JimEverett]

you do but the taking of you fingerprints is so your identity can be confirmed. the taking of Dan is a huge step past fingerprints.
i don't mind this so much if its after a conviction and its a violent repeat offender.

But they are kept on file, right?
And then used to search for evidence of criminal behavior?

Or maybe I get too much of my criminal investigation knowledge from TV

 

[Saintman2884]

parlor, Robespierre's "Reign of Terror" on monarchists, fellow Jacobins, Girondins, sans culottes, and eventually Morat, Diderot, and Condorcet, anyone who opposed Robespierre's grand "Republic of Virtue" Platonic ideal faced "Madame Guillotine", with extra legal facades from his Committees of Public Safety tribunals where a neighbor holding grudges could settle things, once and for all, by accusing them of being counter-revolutionaries.

 

[Jeff Miller]

There's a pretty massive difference between someone having an ink replication of the way your finger looks and someone having a DNA sample. The two aren't remotely comparable.

they are both forms of identification. in that regard they are completely the same. Does DNA contain more information then a fingerprint about a person? sure it does.

When people vote to put people into power, you empower people to make these choices for us. I don't like it either, but its the law of the land now. the only thing that can be done is vote for legislators that would vote for against such laws.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

There's a pretty massive difference between someone having an ink replication of the way your finger looks and someone having a DNA sample. The two aren't remotely comparable.

well, they used to not be

 

[BobE]

the taking of Dan is a huge step past fingerprints.

to me it depends where you are taking Dan.

 

[Madmarsha]

the taking of Dan is a huge step past fingerprints

I don't have a Dan so I don't mind so much. But you can't take my Mike. I'm keeping him.

How far fetched is it that one day, all babies will have their DNA taken? Or have I been watching too much sci fi?

I know I watch too many true crime stories and I'm against anything that prevents detectives from developing true detective skills. "He's guilty because he showed too much/not enough/just the right amount of emotion" yada yada. Well, which amount of emotion "proves" someone's guilt? And I am amazed at how many guilty people ended up in jail in the pre DNA days that shouldn't have happened. But, of course, the prosecutors still say that doesn't prove anything when they try to get re-trials.

So it should work that, if you're not guilty, DNA .. or the lack of yours at a crime scene .. should be a GOOD thing. But that whole "assumed innocent" thing is slowly disappearing.

 

[parlorcitysaint]

parlor, Robespierre's "Reign of Terror" on monarchists, fellow Jacobins, Girondins, sans culottes, and eventually Morat, Diderot, and Condorcet, anyone who opposed Robespierre's grand "Republic of Virtue" Platonic ideal faced "Madame Guillotine", with extra legal facades from his Committees of Public Safety tribunals where a neighbor holding grudges could settle things, once and for all, by accusing them of being counter-revolutionaries.

Which is all it takes to make an arrest. An accusation.

Thanks for making my point so much more eloquently than I was able.

 

[SaintStephen]

When will the Robber Barons answer for their crimes and be swabbed? Ain't tyranny grand?

 

[Det. Brees]

there are several ways Dna can be collected . the way its collected at the jails is through saliva or blood. .Both of these ways are intrusive into your body. now there is the most simplistic Dna left behind when you handle items. its referred to as touch dna . touch Dna by itsself is very hard to get a conviction on because the margin of error is high. basically it does not narrow the pool down enough. this type of Dna would not serve as good evidence to collect to get convictions. my issue is this without a warrant or even a conviction the gov. will invade your body to gather evidence without cause of a crime or a warrant.

 

[Rickboy]

Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan all agree that this is wrong. Frankly I'm shocked (but encouraged) that the far left wing of the court is against this. I'm equally discouraged that Roberts voted for it.

IMO this is one more brick in the Police state we are building.

 

[champ76]

there are several ways Dna can be collected . the way its collected at the jails is through saliva or blood. .Both of these ways are intrusive into your body. now there is the most simplistic Dna left behind when you handle items. its referred to as touch dna . touch Dna by itsself is very hard to get a conviction on because the margin of error is high. basically it does not narrow the pool down enough. this type of Dna would not serve as good evidence to collect to get convictions. my issue is this without a warrant or even a conviction the gov. will invade your body to gather evidence without cause of a crime or a warrant.

Bingo. First off, that was a fascinating division in the Court. Scalia with three ultra liberal justices dissenting. Second, while I think there isn't much difference between fingerprinting at booking and a DNA swab at booking, the extra intrusiveness of invading the body to collect the sample is enough for me to have found it violative of the Fourth Amendment. Third, cataloging DNA from mere suspects makes me squeamish, which is my final test in close calls like this.

Someone who has the time should compare the votes on this case to the recent one involving the placement of a GPS device on a suspect's car. I'd be interested to see who found that intrusive, and the DNA swab not(and vice versa). I thought the GPS placement was too intrusive also without a warrant.

 

[El Caliente]

So when do we find out that our DNA was sold to some corporation (you know.... The part that Monsanto doesn't own)?