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

the comparison to the fingerprint is interesting to me - and the majority seems to make a lot out of it.

Scalia responds by saying that the main purpose of the fingerprint is identification - which is different from the sole purpose (according to the dissent) of DNA collection.
But the dissent seems to ignore the "search" aspect of fingerprints. In fact, it appears they dismiss by saying that the Court has not really ruled on fingerprints as a search.

That is interesting. I wonder if Scalia and other members of the minority would be willing to rule that fingerprints are to be used for identification only and any use of them to solve crimes must be accompanied by a warrant.

Anyway - its a scary ruling. The Court is saying that police can now perform a warantless search on you with no probable cause of [other] criminal action - in fact not even reasonable suspicion of another crime - and really no suspicion whatsoever.
 
Anyway - its a scary ruling. The Court is saying that police can now perform a warantless search on you with no probable cause of [other] criminal action - in fact not even reasonable suspicion of another crime - and really no suspicion whatsoever.

This is the part that concerns me the most, and I wonder how this ruling will affect cases involving those circustances.
 
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.

I'm pretty discouraged by Roberts all together. Man just seems eager to rubber stamp everything.
 
I'm pretty discouraged by Roberts all together. Man just seems eager to rubber stamp everything.

I have no idea who he is, but i agree. Left, right, no matter. Anyone who voted for this needs to be kicked outta the country.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
the comparison to the fingerprint is interesting to me - and the majority seems to make a lot out of it.

Scalia responds by saying that the main purpose of the fingerprint is identification - which is different from the sole purpose (according to the dissent) of DNA collection.
But the dissent seems to ignore the "search" aspect of fingerprints. In fact, it appears they dismiss by saying that the Court has not really ruled on fingerprints as a search.

That is interesting. I wonder if Scalia and other members of the minority would be willing to rule that fingerprints are to be used for identification only and any use of them to solve crimes must be accompanied by a warrant.

Anyway - its a scary ruling. The Court is saying that police can now perform a warantless search on you with no probable cause of [other] criminal action - in fact not even reasonable suspicion of another crime - and really no suspicion whatsoever.

Because fingerprints were the first mile down a long road to losing liberties. I have mentioned a few times in here about DARPA trying to put chips in Soldiers, and they always had a "good" reason to do it (Medical, paperwork, files whatever). We simply could not let a "good" reason be the key to turning Soldiers into tracked dogs. We have been tagging [my fault, proper term is microchip implant] the dogs/cats in the vet here forever.

This just seems like another mile-marker on the slippery slope. If we can allow an intrusive procedure like this, without being proven guilty of a crime, tagging is not too far off. No more worries for skipping bail, when you can monitor their every move while awaiting trial.
 
Eminent Domain
Corporate Campaign Contributions
Warrantless Body Searches

Yes, this SCOTUS is made of fail and suck.
 
Taking of one's DNA is going too far in my opinion. I think there is some hidden agenda behind it all and as Shizzle said, it's just one more step down that slippery slope.
 
I'm just shocked that Thomas didn't vote with Scalia.
 
I am totally against this, and I tried to tell my wife and kids(19,17) about it and they are like, "if you have not done anything then you have nothing to worry about". I told them it my right to privacy and this is getting into becoming a police state. Sheesh
 
I'm okay with this ruling. DNA is just an advanced form of fingerprinting. It helps solve crimes and exonerate those wrongfully convicted. Interesting study from the Denver D.A.: http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Denver's Preventable Crimes Study.pdf

I really don't view this as infringing on someone's rights. They're not rounding up everyone on the street to get mouth swabs. You've got to establish probable cause for an arrest and go through the booking process (which typically involve photographs and fingerprinting - how is this that much different?).

If you're not out there committing crimes, you've got nothing to worry about. :shrug:
 
I'm ok with it but the penalty for a government official that misuses this information or any personnel data should be facing serious charges.
 
This is a body cavity search, but one with absolutely no link to the safety of law enforcement officers OR the person detained, nor to any spoliation of evidence risk.

The Roberts court is all about one thing -- the concentration of power.
 
Frankly I'm shocked (but encouraged) that the far left wing of the court is against this.
:confused:

They are the ones by far most likely to be strongly against this. Why would that shock you?

I'm shocked with Breyer and Scalia, but the rest are exactly where they would be expected to vote (maybe Kennedy not as strongly but he isn't a big shock).
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom