JimEverett
More than 15K posts served!
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Messages
- 24,977
- Reaction score
- 7,842
Offline
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.
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.