SCOTUS approves DNA swabs from arrestees

[rockhopper46038]

So I saw a few posts from mrjarral as this has worked its way through the legislative and judicial systems, but my search did not turn up this little late-breaking tidbit.

Supreme Court rules police can take DNA swabs from those arrested | Fox News

I'm going to have to read the whole opinion I suppose, but my first reaction is that this is screwed up.

 

[rambone]

4 out of 5 Republican justices approve of warrantless DNA harvesting.

 

[rw02kr43]

dna

Maybe they can get it from my pee. I'll be more than happy to give them a sample right there at the scene.

Jason

 

[CathyInBlue]

Question:

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

If, upon arrest, your DNA is taken and immediately entered into a federal database, how can a city prosecutor from Podunk, Indiana order the feds to remove it pursuant to IC 35-47-2-24(b)?

 

[horsehaulin]

Sorry guys, I believe everyone should be DNA cataloged if incarcerated. I had a buddy that was murdered while in the Army and it took eight years for the murderer to be caught. DNA is not like a gun registry.

 

[horsehaulin]

Question:
[/I]If, upon arrest, your DNA is taken and immediately entered into a federal database, how can a city prosecutor from Podunk, Indiana order the feds to remove it pursuant to IC 35-47-2-24(b)?

That code will be amended to fall in line with Federal Law/Regs.


The only ones needing to fear this are those that are guilty of a serious crime.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Any of the lawyer types here know if fingerprints are expunged from the database if you are arrested but not charged?

If so I wonder if that would also follow that particular precedent? The whole thing seems creepy and overreaching unless there is a mechanism to expunge your data if you are presumed innocent. Its one thing to get a hit on fingerprints/DNA during the short hold that you are in custody. I think its a bit excessive to be able to keep the DNA of an innocent person indefinitely.

Is it handy for the data to be there permanently? Youbetcha. Its also handy to register all guns, require GPS tracking, allow warrantless searches, etc. Is it conducive to a liberty oriented society? HELL NO!

 

[rambone]

Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search - CNN.com

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority's reasoning established a "terrifying principle."

"The court's opinion barely mentions the crucial fact about this case: the search here was entirely suspicionless. The police had no reason to believe King's DNA would link him to any crime."

Scalia added the state law "manages to burden uniquely the sole group for whom the Fourth Amendment's protections ought to be most jealously guarded: people who are innocent of the state's accusations," describing of the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty.

He was supported by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Scalia's prior support of Fourth Amendment protections is well-documented, so his siding with three more liberal members of the court was not surprising.

Decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf

Maryland v. King : SCOTUSblog

 

[Cameramonkey]

Sorry guys, I believe everyone should be DNA cataloged if incarcerated. I had a buddy that was murdered while in the Army and it took eight years for the murderer to be caught. DNA is not like a gun registry.

ABSOLUTELY. If you are found guilty of a crime, I'm all for DNA. Its keeping the innocent person's data on file just because they had probable cause for an arrest (but not even enough to charge the person let alone get a conviction) that I have a problem with.

And I dont mind it being compared to whats in the evidence database at that time. But If you are not charged the data shouldnt be kept so that it can be accessed later for future crimes.

How is it any different than getting this phone call: "Hi Mr. Smith. Steve at the Prosecutors office. You may recall you were arrested last year because you were at the crime scene but my office discovered it was your cousin that did the crime so we arrested him and your charges were dropped. Hey, look, we had another crime with fingerprints found. Would you mind coming down to my office so we can compare your prints to the ones found at the scene? Yeah, we know we have nothing else connecting you to the crime, but we want to rule you out as a possible suspect. You're innocent, right? Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? Whats the harm? SO see you later this afternoon?"

 

[rambone]

Justices Wrestle Over Allowing DNA Sampling at Time of Arrest

Justice Elena Kagan said there must be limits, saying an arrest would not justify the search of an individual’s home for possible evidence of an unrelated crime. She added that under the state’s theory, the law enforcement interest in solving crimes could be used to justify obtaining a DNA sample in many settings.

“Why don’t we do this for everybody who comes in for a driver’s license because it’s very effective?” she asked, rhetorically.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Data taken at time of arrest should be limitted exclusively to data which can be ascertained, compared, or recorded by means of the unaided human senses of sight and hearing. If you can't see it with your unaided eyes or hear it with your unaided ears, then the police have no business recording it until a judge signs off on its recording by sensory augmentation means. Since we can't "taste" DNA, then DNA should be restricted to unreasonableness under the 4th Amendment, thus requiring a warrant and all the hoopla that accompanies it.

 

[hornadylnl]

We needed to vote Romney so that we can get conservative Supreme Court nominees.

 

[K_W]

Why don't they just sample at birth, under the guise of "protecting the children" then they don't have to fight the courts. Not that I approve.

 

[rambone]

Why don't they just sample at birth, under the guise of "protecting the children" then they don't have to fight the courts. Not that I approve.

Already happening.

Newborn DNA Banking | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[horsehaulin]

This is one technology that could ACTUALLY save a child's life. It could save many from facing a murderer, rapist or child molester. Why? Because if their DNA is in the system, they can immediately be prosecuted! Are you telling me that you guys are against this, something that will actually work, as much as you are against UBC?

I understand no one wants to have their freedoms subject to exploitation, but their is no way to exploit DNA. Everyone that holds a Federal or Military status has already given it up, how can it possibly hurt us to give it up? Please help me understand your point of view.

 

[hornadylnl]

This is one technology that could ACTUALLY save a child's life. It could save many from facing a murderer, rapist or child molester. Why? Because if their DNA is in the system, they can immediately be prosecuted! Are you telling me that you guys are against this, something that will actually work, as much as you are against UBC?

I understand no one wants to have their freedoms subject to exploitation, but their is no way to exploit DNA. Everyone that holds a Federal or Military status has already given it up, how can it possibly hurt us to give it up? Please help me understand your point of view.

300 million + people in this country with humans building and maintaining this database. What if your DNA gets switched with a bad actors? Why don't we just wear tracking devices? That would allow for even better prosecutions.

 

[rockhopper46038]

This is one technology that could ACTUALLY save a child's life. It could save many from facing a murderer, rapist or child molester. Why? Because if their DNA is in the system, they can immediately be prosecuted! Are you telling me that you guys are against this, something that will actually work, as much as you are against UBC?

I understand no one wants to have their freedoms subject to exploitation, but their is no way to exploit DNA. Everyone that holds a Federal or Military status has already given it up, how can it possibly hurt us to give it up? Please help me understand your point of view.

You realize this decision means you need not be charged with any crime or infraction for your DNA to be involuntarily harvested from you and kept indefinitely for use as the State sees fit?

 

[hornadylnl]

You realize this decision means you need not be charged with any crime or infraction for your DNA to be involuntarily harvested from you and kept indefinitely for use as the State sees fit?

I don't see him volunteering his DNA.

 

[rambone]

This article makes the case that warrantless DNA harvesting is unnecessary. Alonzo King, from the SCOTUS case, would have been tied to the sexual assault regardless of whether his genetic profile was stolen during booking. Once he was properly convicted of his assault charges, his DNA could have been legally collected and the cold case would have been solved at that point.

The author suggests that more cold cases could be solved by collecting more DNA at crime scenes, not from unconvicted arrestees.

Too Much Information: Why collecting DNA from people who are arrested won’t help solve more crimes

 

[rambone]

This is one technology that could ACTUALLY save a child's life. It could save many from facing a murderer, rapist or child molester. Why? Because if their DNA is in the system, they can immediately be prosecuted! Are you telling me that you guys are against this, something that will actually work, as much as you are against UBC?

Please read the article I posted above. There is a lot of hype about taking arrestees DNA, when data does not correlate it with better crime solving statistics.

States like California, which vastly expanded DNA databanks to include arrestees, do not generate dramatically more matches between offenders and crime scenes than do states with much smaller databases, like New York or Illinois. That is because New York and Illinois, despite the smaller numbers of offenders in their databases, enter crime scene samples at rates comparable to California. Indeed, from 2010 to 2012, California halved the average number of offender profiles uploaded per month, but kept the number of samples from crime scenes constant. The result was an increase in database hits. The same dynamic played out in the United Kingdom. The lesson is clear: The police solve more crimes not by taking DNA from suspects who have never been convicted, but by collecting more evidence at crime scenes.
​

Besides ineffectiveness, I oppose it simply out of principle. Every police power gained comes at some cost to liberty.

I understand no one wants to have their freedoms subject to exploitation, but their is no way to exploit DNA.

Are you sure about this, both right now and in the future? Could an unscrupulous detective not plant DNA evidence at the scene of a crime to frame up an innocent suspect?

Everyone that holds a Federal or Military status has already given it up, how can it possibly hurt us to give it up?

Life in the military is micromanaged in every possible way. Every aspect is centralized, communal, and devoid of individual rights. Noooo thanks.