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

Cain said:
I don't see the big deal.

Here's an article/blog post from the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology...nal-law-reform/dna-privacy-goes-supreme-court
Click to expand...

Do people actually read the links they post? :confused:

You don't see the big deal. Fine. Only here's what the blog you linked says in part-

Three of the plaintiffs in the ACLU of Northern California's challenge to our state's law were arrested at political protests (none was ever convicted of anything and two weren't even charged) Other DNA collection laws are even broader: the federal government, for example, can require you to give a DNA sample if you are arrested for walking your pet off-leash (or with a leash more than 6 feet long), or even parking violations on federal land. The government should not be able to seize, analyze, and permanently databank your DNA just because you took your dog to the park with a 7-foot leash. More worrisome, California and the federal government don't automatically destroy your sample if you are released without charges or found not guilty...

Our brief also points out that there is no need for the government to collect DNA from so many innocent people. First, in any case where there is DNA evidence left at the crime scene, the same probable cause that the police need to arrest somebody will allow them to get a warrant to take that person's DNA. Second, the law allows them to take DNA from people who are actually convicted of a crime. And, as research from the RAND Corporation and the United Kingdom has shown, taking DNA from innocent people doesn't help solve crimes (this obvious point is apparently lost on the proponents of this type of DNA testing).
Click to expand...

The federal government takes DNA samples from dog walkers and illegal parkers. Seriously?
 
newyorkguy said:
Do people actually read the links they post? :confused:

You don't see the big deal. Fine. Only here's what the blog you linked says in part-
Click to expand...

Do people think before they post? I deliberately sought out the ACLU for a non-Scalia take that undoubtedly opposed this recent ruling... and I didn't think it was compelling.
 
BenBurch said:
They don't only use DNA to connect you to crimes!

They use it to exclude you from crimes.

They use it to determine if the foot they found washed up on the riverbank was you.
Click to expand...

And even better... they can get your relatives for crimes they may have committed.
 
triforcharity said:
I disagree. I feel it is self-incrimination. Forcing you to provide evidence that could be used against you, without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any kind of a judge's order, I feel is wrong. The 5th doesn't just apply to spoken word. The SCOTUS disagreed, so it is what it is. WRT: leaving my DNA everywhere, do you really, honestly think I don't know this? I'm not stupid. I also suggested other legal means of collecting the DNA. Such as tooth brushes, trash, etc. This isn't my first rodeo discussing evidence, how it's collected, and how it can be used, nor is this a new concept for me. Please don't talk down to me. I know it's not intentional, but that's the way you've come across in the last post.
Click to expand...



I really do think this is a stupid argument. Doesn't the security cameras that catches you in 5 different places do the same thing? Doesn't the fingerprint do the same thing? Should be ban security camera's and fingerprinting because people can potentially incriminate themselves?
 
newyorkguy said:
They're not using the DNA for either purpose. It's merely to build up their data base.

Having watched a PBS newscast tonight, I am against it. Why?

Because until today's ruling the police needed a warrant to collect your DNA. In other words, they had to produce evidence that would satisfy a judge they (the police) had legitimate grounds to force you to give a DNA sample. Now they're free to do so based on what crime you're charged with, not convicted of.

I don't want the government to have more ways to intrude on us, more ways to invade our privacy. They have already have enough. They don't need even more power over us (which is basically what today's ruling does).

Btw it was Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the dissenting opinion.
Click to expand...

I just don't get it. What does that even mean? What do you mean intrude on you? What's going to happen to you if the government has your DNA on file? Clone you? Does it upset you that they may be able to catch you if you decide to become a serial rapist? What is this power over you they have?
 
Caper said:
I just don't get it....What is this power over you they have?
Click to expand...

Sticking a swab in my mouth and storing my DNA? When I've done something like, been
arrested for walking [my] pet off-leash (or with a leash more than 6 feet long)
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore this? Because you can't knock it down? (Note to myself - Isn't that what some people in Internet forums always do? Anything they can't knock down they ignore?)
Research from the RAND Corporation and the United Kingdom has shown, taking DNA from innocent people doesn't help solve crimes (this obvious point is apparently lost on the proponents of this type of DNA testing).
Click to expand...

I'll say one more time, all 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. That's enough. Justice Scalia found no compelling reason to expand that to people charged with -- but not yet convicted of -- a crime. I don't either.

Let me ask all you defenders of DNA sampling a question. What would you consider an intrusion by the government on your rights as a citizen?
 
newyorkguy said:
...

Let me ask all you defenders of DNA sampling a question. What would you consider an intrusion by the government on your rights as a citizen?
Click to expand...

Let's see;

Searching my home or other protected spaces without a warrant.

Detaining or assesting me without probable cause.

Pretty much anything in the Bill of Rights. (Which does not mention DNA or fingerprints or mugshots or voiceprints.)
 
triforcharity said:
I disagree. I feel it is self-incrimination. Forcing you to provide evidence that could be used against you, without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any kind of a judge's order, I feel is wrong. The 5th doesn't just apply to spoken word. The SCOTUS disagreed, so it is what it is. WRT: leaving my DNA everywhere, do you really, honestly think I don't know this? I'm not stupid. I also suggested other legal means of collecting the DNA. Such as tooth brushes, trash, etc. This isn't my first rodeo discussing evidence, how it's collected, and how it can be used, nor is this a new concept for me. Please don't talk down to me. I know it's not intentional, but that's the way you've come across in the last post.
Click to expand...

Sorry to pile on you as well, but I do not think that you realize that you are arguing against yourself.

After all, if the authorities arrest someone for a crime, then they already do have probable cause; because one cannot be arrested without the authorities having probable cause.

And the courts ruled some years back the suspects in a case can be compelled to provide such things as fingerprints, blood tests, dental exams, hand writing samples, and hair samples because the collection of physical evidence is not the same thing as forcing someone to testify against oneself. Therefore, having these same people submit to DNA tests is not a very big step.

So, unless the law itself is actually changed regarding the collection of physical evidence from suspects in a crime, then this looks like a matter that has been firmly settled.
 
newyorkguy said:
Let me ask all you defenders of DNA sampling a question. What would you consider an intrusion by the government on your rights as a citizen?
Click to expand...

There are cases of people arrested (or detained) for B.S. reasons and subjected to a full body cavity search. I think that's worse than having a (mouth) cheek swabbed for DNA.

Now I have a question for the people siding with Scalia.

In this supreme court case, a man was arrested for assault, prompting police to run his DNA and eventually finding a match for a rape case six years earlier. They had enough evidence to convict him on the rape charge. OK, let's say we only convict him of assault, can the state then take his DNA to see what other crimes he committed? If so... WHAT THE ****?

What's the difference between taking a picture of ridges on my fingers and taking DNA? This reminds me of the people principally opposed to speed cameras: "YOU have to catch me." Hell, maybe we should question all photographic technology. Back in the days of the Founders, the best we could do were sketches of suspected bandits. Broadcasting photos of suspects violates their privacy.
 
triforcharity said:
The primary reason for fingerprints, is to identify or confirm an identity. If they only used it to connect you to another crime, you'd have a good point. However, they're not. If DNA was used for primarily identification, I'd be ok with it being used for other purposes. But, of course, it's not.
Click to expand...

I'm having difficulty with this distinction between information used to confirm identity and that used for evidence. Why must the intention be one or the other? In fact, isn't identifying a suspect also a part of the evidence against that suspect? That is, evidence confirming identity can be evidence of a crime.

The same thing is true with mugshots. (The device of several old crime movies was a guy getting plastic surgery to change his appearance significantly enough to avoid being identified by his face. And we all know pros wear gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.)
 
newyorkguy said:
Let me ask all you defenders of DNA sampling a question. What would you consider an intrusion by the government on your rights as a citizen?
Click to expand...

That's easy. Collecting a DNA sample or fingerprint against my will in the absence of probable cause.

Again, the standard is in the 4th Amendment.

ETA: BTW, as I always like to say, it's often easier to think of these rights as limitations on government authority rather than something that pertains to some people. If you think the 4th Amendment only applies to citizens, you are wrong. Where "citizen" is meant, the word citizen is used. When "persons" or "people" or "the accused" is meant, the appropriate one of those words is use. In the case of the 4th Amendment, it is "the people" and not the subset of "the people" who are citizens.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
Why do you ignore this? Because you can't knock it down? (Note to myself - Isn't that what some people in Internet forums always do? Anything they can't knock down they ignore?)
Click to expand...
It could be because using a lengthy leash cannot in any way be justified as a serious crime, which is what the decision specified. Beyond that, are people being arrested at all for using illegal leashes? Is there a leash law in the US that would even allow that?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm having difficulty with this distinction between information used to confirm identity and that used for evidence. Why must the intention be one or the other? In fact, isn't identifying a suspect also a part of the evidence against that suspect? That is, evidence confirming identity can be evidence of a crime.

The same thing is true with mugshots. (The device of several old crime movies was a guy getting plastic surgery to change his appearance significantly enough to avoid being identified by his face. And we all know pros wear gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.)
Click to expand...
Indeed. It would be like claiming constitutional protection from providing your name or your date of birth to the police.
 
Babbylonian said:
Indeed. It would be like claiming constitutional protection from providing your name or your date of birth to the police.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it that way--as a 5th Amendment issue.

That's a little different. Even when there is probable cause, you can't be compelled to say something (be a witness) that would incriminate yourself.

In other words, you never have to tell a cop your name and date of birth if you don't want to. You really do have the right to remain silent.

I'd argue that this isn't being compelled to be a witness against yourself, though. I think it falls more squarely under the 4th Amendment than the 5th Amendment.

Search and seizures are allowable when there is probable cause.

I doubt giving a DNA sample would be construed as testifying against oneself. If it were, then fingerprinting would too. I haven't read up on the jurisprudence of fingerprint collecting, but I would be surprised if the 5th Amendment argument hasn't already been presented to and rejected by the courts. I think the 5th Amendment is limited to making statements of some kind, and not applicable to the collection of physical evidence.
 
Cain said:
There are cases of people arrested (or detained) for B.S. reasons and subjected to a full body cavity search. I think that's worse than having a (mouth) cheek swabbed for DNA.
Click to expand...
Do they do a cavity search on everyone who is arrested? If they propose to, will you be here defending it?


Cain said:
In this supreme court case, a man was arrested for assault, prompting police to run his DNA and eventually finding a match for a rape case six years earlier. They had enough evidence to convict him on the rape charge. OK, let's say we only convict him of assault, can the state then take his DNA to see what other crimes he committed?
Click to expand...
As Scalia said. That's very noble. Why not wait until he's been convicted of a crime? Again, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect citizens, not help the police.

Cain said:
What's the difference between taking a picture of ridges on my fingers and taking DNA?
Click to expand...
They've got your fingerprints. That's enough. Why expand police power over citizens? That's what's at issue.

JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm having difficulty with this distinction between information used to confirm identity and that used for evidence. Why must the intention be one or the other? In fact, isn't identifying a suspect also a part of the evidence against that suspect? That is, evidence confirming identity can be evidence of a crime.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with evidence gathering. If they have DNA evidence of the crime you're being charged with than they already have the right to force you to give a sample. They don't need DNA to establish your identity. In most cases the identity of the person arrested is not in question anyway.

JoeTheJuggler said:
That's easy. Collecting a DNA sample or fingerprint against my will in the absence of probable cause.
Click to expand...
Isn't that exactly what they're doing?


Babbylonian said:
...Beyond that, are people being arrested at all for using illegal leashes? Is there a leash law in the US that would even allow that?
Click to expand...

Yes apparently there is. And when people are arrested for violating the leash law the police are forcing them to give DNA samples. You didn't read the California ACLU link. You're stating an opinion without even knowing all the facts.

This is exactly why the Constitution limits police powers. Because of the clear danger that the police will inevitably abuse whatever power they have.

It' what people in power always do.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'll say one more time, all 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. That's enough. Justice Scalia found no compelling reason to expand that to people charged with -- but not yet convicted of -- a crime. I don't either.
Click to expand...

I think you're also making an assumption that this decision represents an expansion of federal authority. In fact, in most states DNA samples were being taken along with fingerprints as part of the arrest routine in arrests for probable cause of serious crimes.

Courts aren't allowed to make legal pronouncements in the absence of a case in controversy brought to it. This issue had not previously been decided at the Supreme Court level. The decision notes that 28 states and DC have laws similar to the law being challenged (taking DNA for arrest on probable cause of a serious crime).

So your repeated characterization of this decision as an expansion of authority isn't really true. It's the clarification of a question that has hitherto been unanswered by the highest authority on whether a law is constitutional or not.

In most states, this is already the practice. States that prohibit this practice are certainly free to continue to prohibit this practice--and only take DNA samples after conviction. (That's not the question before the Supreme Court.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom