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

[Babbylonian]

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.

Then that violates the decision just handed down and there's remedy available based on it.

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's also why we have courts (including the Supreme one) to address those abuses.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do they do a cavity search on everyone who is arrested? If they propose to, will you be here defending it?

Only if there is probable cause.

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.

States are free to pass laws requiring police to wait until conviction. The question is, do they have to wait because not waiting violates the 4th Amendment?

They've got your fingerprints. That's enough. Why expand police power over citizens? That's what's at issue.

You're wrong. See my previous post. You're making a false assumption that this case is changing the status quo. In fact, this is the status quo in most states. And in states that choose to wait until conviction, this decision will not force them to stop that policy.

The question is whether or not taking the DNA sample at the time of arrest on probable cause for a serious crime is unconstitutional.

Yes apparently there is. And when people are arrested for violating the leash law the police are forcing them to give DNA samples.

That's not true. The decision describes the law as only applying to people arrested under probable cause for serious crimes and detained and taken to the police station. This does not authorize field collection of DNA samples. That point is made clear in the decision.

If you've only violated a city leash law and done nothing else, you aren't under arrest with probable cause of having committed a serious crime. If you violate a leash law, and then punch the cop when he tries to cite you for it, that's another story.

 

[Babbylonian]

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.

Nope. Not only can you be legally required to reveal your name upon arrest but according to another Supreme Court decision (Scalia concurring, by the way), you can be required by law to reveal your name to police based on suspicion of a crime.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

That's not how the 4th Amendment works. I don't think you can argue that fingerprinting and mugshots are illegal intrusions (or more accurately, unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment) that are tolerated until the final straw of another "intrusion" is added.

The courts often establish rules by analogy. If fingerprinting is legal under the 4th Amendment in these situations, is there something different about DNA sampling that puts it in a different category?

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>

If you've only violated a city leash law and done nothing else, you aren't under arrest with probable cause of having committed a serious crime...

Joe this comment is shameful. It's EXACTLY what they're doing. I've posted a link from the ACLU filing AND a quote. Yet you ignore it and make something up that better fits your position.

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.

Link

I'm reposting it in bold. Reposting the link. What's the next step, ask for your phone number so I can call you up and read it to you?

You can believe whatever you want. The ruling is a done deal. I just don't happen to agree with it. I've posted this link and quote three times now and people not only ignore it, they argue that this never happens.

Again. Live in your fantasy world if you want. I've got better uses for my time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm having difficulty with this distinction between information used to confirm identity and that used for evidence.

I think I misread TrioForCharity's post earlier. He was pointing out that what the court authorized is only a certain type of DNA marker testing that can be used for identification--as opposed, for example, to using the sample to determine familial relationships. Under this ruling, you'd still need a warrant to do those other kinds of DNA analysis.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe this comment is shameful. It's EXACTLY what they're doing.

It's not what anyone is doing based on the Supreme Court decision that is the subject of this thread.

You can believe whatever you want. The ruling is a done deal. I just don't happen to agree with it. I've posted this link and quote three times now and people not only ignore it, they argue that this never happens.

You obviously haven't read the Supreme Court decision that is the subject of this thread. Even the NY Times article in the OP gives a quote of the holding from the syllabus which makes it clear that it doesn't apply to the cases you're talking about.

Again. Live in your fantasy world if you want. I've got better uses for my time.

Right! I'm the one in a fantasy world, when you're the one who believes that this holding:

Held: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

somehow allows for DNA testing in the leash law case you're speaking of.

And again, getting back to this case, it is not the expansion of authority. It's the legal recognition of a practice that is already the status quo in most states. And yet again, states that wish to continue their policy of waiting until conviction can do so. This decision doesn't prohibit states from further restricting police authority.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

FWIW, the California ACLU recognized in its Amicus brief that these issues are beyond the scope of the law being challenged in Maryland v. King:

Fourth, many DNA laws are even broader
than Maryland’s. California, for example, seizes and
searches the DNA of everyone arrested for any
felony, including crimes such as stealing $250 worth
of fruits or nuts from a farmer’s field, unlawfully
subleasing a car, or simple drug possession. The
federal government takes DNA from persons
arrested even for minor misdemeanors, which can
include people arrested for walking a dog off-leash or
distributing leaflets without permission. Like many
states, both of these jurisdictions analyze and upload
into CODIS the DNA samples of every eligible
arrestee, including those never charged with a crime,
without any judicial involvement.

In this context, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly on the law being challenged in the case before it. It specified the limited conditions where it found collection of DNA as part of booking to be reasonable under the 4th Amendment.

ETA:
And the ACLU gave its reason for considering these other laws that are beyond the scope of the law being challenge in this case:

Although Maryland’s law is narrower
than these other states’, Petitioner’s arguments, and
those of its amici, are crafted to try to justify these
much broader laws, with no limiting principle.

If this is true, then the ACLU more or less won this point. The court did not rule broadly enough to protect those other laws. (I suspect Maryland--the Petitioner--would not have wanted the case framed broadly, though, since it would seriously weaken its case.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm reposting it in bold. Reposting the link. What's the next step, ask for your phone number so I can call you up and read it to you?

I suggest you take a few minutes and read the Maryland v. King decision and the ACLU brief before you continue claiming that the decision somehow allows for DNA sampling of people cited for having an 8 ft rather than 6 ft leash.

The ACLU isn't making that claim.

 

[Dorian Gray]

*sigh.....* Did you not read a single thing I posted? I've made at least 2 semi-detailed posts explaining my position, and explaining my logic for believing what I do. Let's do the reader digest version. Fingerprinting= PRIMARILY, and has been for MANY years, been used to IDENTIFY a person, or verify an identity. DNA- not used primarily to identify someone. Yes, it CAN be used for other purposes, but the PRIMARY reason a LE agency would use DNA is NOT for identification. It's to convict of a crime. I really cannot make this any more clear. Is that why the DNA is primarily gathered? Yes, it is. The fact that DNA can be obtained with a mouth swap is irrelevant. It's what that DNA is USED for. Plain and simple. I'd prefer some reasonable suspicion at least, and really would prefer a court order.

This isn't about what those are PRIMARILY used for (all caps - why?). This is about whether gathering DNA is constitutional. It is.

 

[triforcharity]

A DNA sample provided at the police station can't be a fifth amendment violation because it doesn't incriminate you - it does nothing but attach a specific genotype to your name.

It's the DNA sample you left at the crime scene that incriminates you.

That's a weird way of putting it. So, forcing me to tell on myself, isn't really incriminating, because what REALLY is incriminating is the evidence left behind......Gotcha. Sorry Checkmite, you're wrong on this one.

 

[triforcharity]

Ummmm..... The same can be said about fingerprints.

Daredelvis

Can, though is that in fact the PRIMARY reason for fingerprints? No. Feel free to weasel around, dodge, and avoid this at all costs. It's ok though.

 

[triforcharity]

I really do think this is a stupid argument.

Oh, we'll see stupid here in the very next sentence.

Doesn't the security cameras that catches you in 5 different places do the same thing?

No. I'm not forced to incriminate myself. If there's video of me committing a crime, it's because I willing went somewhere with video cameras. You've failed.

Doesn't the fingerprint do the same thing?

Same as above.

Should be ban security camera's and fingerprinting because people can potentially incriminate themselves?

Finger printing is done PRIMARILY for identification!!

Equating the two is completely asinine.

 

[triforcharity]

100% of all Americans should have their DNA taken.

And 100% of all visitors to the USA.

Nobody has a right to anonymity and nobody should have that right.

Wow, the 4th and 5th Amendment is irrelevant to you, eh? Please tell me this is just you trolling.

 

[triforcharity]

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.)

But yet, you want to further restrict people's rights to guns. Gotcha. Special pleading 101 at it's finest.

 

[daredelvis]

Finger printing is done PRIMARILY for identification!!

Equating the two is completely asinine.

Collecting DNA by the police is done PRIMARILY for identification!!

OK, I now see where the formatting makes the argument.

Daredelvis

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can, though is that in fact the PRIMARY reason for fingerprints?

The decision specifies that the Maryland law it found constitutional limits DNA analysis of these samples to identification purposes (in other words, you'd still need a warrant to use the sample to check for familial relationship or something else).

I don't see a distinction, on the grounds you're pushing, between fingerprinting and DNA.

 

[triforcharity]

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

I'm not, but I'll humor you anyway.

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.

Not for DNA collection. My issue is, and I've said it before, is the collection of DNA specifically to check for evidence linking someone to ANOTHER crime. THAT is the problem I have. The biggest reason LE want DNA, is to gather evidence of another crime. Ask them. They'll tell you.

Say I get drunk one night at a bar (it's been known to happen, I'm part Irish) and I get in a fight. The other guy presses charges, and I'm arrested. What does my DNA have to do with the crime of battery? Nothing. But yet, some police want that DNA. Why? They're not using it to identify me. That's what fingerprints and mugshots are for. There is no probable cause to suspect me in another crime, UNTIL the DNA is checked.

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.

You're confusing search incident to arrest, and the collection of evidence of a crime, to this scenario. It's flawed to it's core. BTW, compelled usually constitutes a warrant.

Therefore, having these same people submit to DNA tests is not a very big step.

It's completely different.

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.

Not unless you actually apply the law correctly. Sorry Crossbow, but your entire premise is flawed. You're conflating two separate issues all together.

 

[triforcharity]

This isn't about what those are PRIMARILY used for (all caps - why?).

All caps because I've only said it about 109 times or so....

This is about whether gathering DNA is constitutional. It is.

It is, yes. Unfortunately I disagree with the SCOTUS on this, but it is legal, yes. They are the highest court in the land, and what they decide is law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. I'm not forced to incriminate myself.

In this case, the objection to the law raised was the 4th Amendment, not the 5th.

These are very different. With probable cause, searches and seizures that otherwise would be unreasonable are OK. Under the 5th Amendment, a person has the right not to confess or give incriminating testimony even when there is probable cause.

But giving fingerprints and DNA samples against one's will aren't the same thing as being compelled "to be a witness against himself". If so, then collecting fingerprints and DNA off crime scene surfaces would not be allowed as evidence.

As I earlier guessed, this question has been raised and answered. In Schmerber v. California (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination only extends to communicative evidence, and not things like fingerprints and blood samples (and presumably DNA samples).