Merged Justices Allow Police to Take D.N.A. Samples After Arrests

Antonin Scalia, Bleeding-Heart Liberal. Really.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Antonin Scalia, Bleeding-Heart Liberal
Reason

...

The majority opinion (which was joined by Stephen Breyer, usually identified as a member of the Court's "liberal wing") concedes that the forcible collection of a DNA sample from inside King's mouth constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. But the majority says that search, although warrantless and not based on any expectation that it would discover evidence of the crime with which King had been charged, was "reasonable" because it was aimed at "identifying" him.

Scalia blows that rationale to smithereens in a scathing dissent joined by the Court's three most left-leaning members. "The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous," he writes. "These DNA searches have nothing to do with identification."

The police already knew who King was, and the DNA test, the results of which were not available until four months after his arrest, did not confirm his identity. Rather, the test implicated him in another crime.

"If the Court’s identification theory is not wrong," Scalia writes, "there is no such thing as error." And since "the Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incrimi*nating evidence," he concludes, Maryland's law is unconstitutional.

...
Click to expand...

Anyone here care to defend the majority opinion?
 
I've always wondered why we don't just collect DNA from everyone and have a national database. To me it just makes so much sense. For one thing it would make identifying corpses found in the woods or other remote areas much easier.
 
Crossbow said:
Umm, ...

Just because Scalia occasionally makes narrow legal arguments which are based on civil liberties issues that are mentioned in the Constitution, please do not mistake him for a Liberal.
Click to expand...

Sure.

I was kind of hoping for someone to defend the majority opinion so we could really get into it.

Nobody? :)
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Sure.

I was kind of hoping for someone to defend the majority opinion so we could really get into it.

Nobody? :)
Click to expand...

Umm, ...

Well, if you would please read your own thread (Post #23 and Post #24) then you would see that this very issue is already being discussed in two threads which pre-date this one.

Thanks.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Is there a typo in there somewhere, or am I misunderstanding you?

It seems like you say both that you have no problem with it and you are against it.
Click to expand...

I accepted the decision though I would prefer the Court hadn't allowed it.

Then later, after watching a newscast, which explained it more thoroughly, then I found myself really turning against it. One reason was, a lot of the justifications for the decision that I had read in this thread, prior to watching the newscast, turned out to be largely irrelevant to the decision. A lot of the reasons and uses cited here to justify it turned out to be erroneous.

I also read Scalia's dissent. He argues the government already intrudes enough. (People here are arguing they don't intrude enough?) That fingerprinting and taking mug shots of people who have been accused of, but not convicted of a crime is adequate for purposes of identification.

Already twenty-eight states require convicted felons to provide DNA samples when they enter the prison system. New York is one of them. That's adequate, there is no need to expand DNA sampling to persons PRIOR to conviction. Scalia has a hard time imagining Thomas Jefferson agreeing to open his mouth for a swabbing merely because he's been arrested. I have trouble imagining that too.
 
daredelvis said:
Take the time to read the existing thread. Do you hold the same opinion of fingerprinting?

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

No, and rightfully so. The fingerprints are a quick, easy, accurate way to identify someone, or confirm an identity, whereas DNA is not quick, or easy in the strictest definition. I'm against this ruling, though I understand the necessity for it.
 
triforcharity said:
No, and rightfully so. The fingerprints are a quick, easy, accurate way to identify someone, or confirm an identity, whereas DNA is not quick, or easy in the strictest definition. I'm against this ruling, though I understand the necessity for it.
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong about DNA not being easy or quick, and getting wronger by the month. It is much more like a digital fingerprint.

Daredelvis
 
triforcharity said:
No, and rightfully so. The fingerprints are a quick, easy, accurate way to identify someone, or confirm an identity, whereas DNA is not quick, or easy in the strictest definition. I'm against this ruling, though I understand the necessity for it.
Click to expand...

Quick is coming. Easy for the police, actually, as nothing is simpler than taking a cheek swab.

The development of a swab will soon be a matter of a couple hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_DNA
 
In an article I read yesterday, the majority argued that taking DNA is no different than using mugshots or large gang tattoos to identify suspects. That strikes me as a ******** analogy. There's no expectation of privacy when you're showing your face out in public. People get large tattoos on exposed parts of their bodies in order to show them off.

Fingerprints are different, and it seems like that slope is a little slippery. They can print you if you're arrested, and then fish those prints against open investigations. While it might currently take longer to get results from DNA, this will not always be the case. Fingerprints have not always been uploaded into computer databases. Future criminals will go all Unabomber and take pubes from bathrooms and throw 'em into their crime scenes.
 
Cain said:
...
Fingerprints are different, and it seems like that slope is a little slippery. They can print you if you're arrested, and then fish those prints against open investigations. While it might currently take longer to get results from DNA, this will not always be the case....
Click to expand...

It's not about the difference between a mug shot, fingerprints and DNA samples. It's an additional intrusion on people who have only been accused of but not convicted of a crime.

This is supposed to be the bedrock of American democracy. That the government is limited, and shall always remain limited, in the ways it can intrude on the rights of citizens to be, basically, left the hell alone.

Law enforcement says they need DNA testing. Fine, I have much respect for law enforcement. Some of my best friends happen to be cops. :cool:

Only law enforcement always wants more. In our system, unless they can prove an absolute burning need, they should be told no.
 
newyorkguy said:
It's not about the difference between a mug shot, fingerprints and DNA samples. It's an additional intrusion on people who have only been accused of but not convicted of a crime.

This is supposed to be the bedrock of American democracy. That the government is limited, and shall always remain limited, in the ways it can intrude on the rights of citizens to be, basically, left the hell alone.

Law enforcement says they need DNA testing. Fine, I have much respect for law enforcement. Some of my best friends happen to be cops. :cool:

Only law enforcement always wants more. In our system, unless they can prove an absolute burning need, they should be told no.
Click to expand...
I guess I just don't understand the objection to DNA and not to fingerprints. Especially the "it shakes the bedrock of our freedoms" objection.

The burning need is that good quality DNA is often available at crime scenes when there are no fingerprints.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
I think you are wrong about DNA not being easy or quick, and getting wronger by the month. It is much more like a digital fingerprint.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

It is not easy, as it requires tests to be done in a lab, and is time consuming and expensive, though both are coming down. If the police were in fact using this DNA as a method of identification, and nothing more, then IMO it would be acceptable. But, they're not using it for identification. They're using this evidence to tie a person to a crime. While I like the results, I would prefer that this type of evidence be gathered by court order.

It may BE a digital fingerprint, with that I agree. However, it's not being used to identify, it's being used to gather evidence which can, and will, be used against a person.
 
BenBurch said:
Quick is coming. Easy for the police, actually, as nothing is simpler than taking a cheek swab.

The development of a swab will soon be a matter of a couple hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_DNA
Click to expand...

Quick is coming, I agree. Easy to collect the evidence, yes, I agree, and know that. However, the process to liberate the DNA is still a time consuming process, and requires quite a bit of work, though even that is advancing too.

However, as I said above, it's not the fact that they're gathering the DNA, it's what they're using the DNA for. They're not using it as strictly identification, they're using it for evidence of different crimes, and that is where I disagree that it is "no different than a fingerprint". IMO.
 
daredelvis said:
I guess I just don't understand the objection to DNA and not to fingerprints. Especially the "it shakes the bedrock of our freedoms" objection.

The burning need is that good quality DNA is often available at crime scenes when there are no fingerprints.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Then get the DNA by other means. Like, a court order. Or get their tooth brush. Or any of a dozen other things that contain DNA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom