PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search



efmbman
06-03-2013, 09:51 PM
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ruled criminal suspects can be subjected to a police DNA test after arrest -- before trial and conviction -- a privacy-versus-public-safety dispute that could have wide-reaching implications in the rapidly evolving technology surrounding criminal procedure.
At issue in the ruling Monday was whether taking genetic samples from someone held without a warrant in criminal custody for "a serious offense" is an unconstitutional "search."
A 5-4 majority of the court concluded it is legitimate, and upheld a state law.
"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they 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," the majority wrote.


Very curious to hear the pro's and con's. There are some here I am especially dying to hear from.

Link to full story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

efmbman
06-03-2013, 10:02 PM
I posted a thread on this just after the one on the retinal scans at school, but that one is still for some reason "awaiting moderator approval".

A while back in the UK< there was cases against the police there doing just this, taking people's DNA and putting it into a database, even for just being arrested.. and the european court of human rights said that it is invasive and wrong.. but the police always struggled to comply with their orders to remove people's DNA once they were released or found not guilty..
Which is what i fear will happen here.. A spiking in arrests, just to get everyone's DNA to build the biggest database possible.. and no matter whether there was cause or not to arrest you in the first place, or whether you are found innocent/charges dropped and you get a court ordering your DNA be removed, i can see the police here being just as slow/dithering about removing it as the UK police have been.

What about the argument that taking the DNA swab is no different than the process of taking fingerprints for every arrest?

garhkal
06-03-2013, 10:05 PM
I posted a thread on this just after the one on the retinal scans at school, but that one is still for some reason "awaiting moderator approval".

A while back in the UK< there was cases against the police there doing just this, taking people's DNA and putting it into a database, even for just being arrested.. and the european court of human rights said that it is invasive and wrong.. but the police always struggled to comply with their orders to remove people's DNA once they were released or found not guilty..
Which is what i fear will happen here.. A spiking in arrests, just to get everyone's DNA to build the biggest database possible.. and no matter whether there was cause or not to arrest you in the first place, or whether you are found innocent/charges dropped and you get a court ordering your DNA be removed, i can see the police here being just as slow/dithering about removing it as the UK police have been.

garhkal
06-04-2013, 04:52 AM
IIRC taking your finger prints when arrested, but NOT convicted, just gets them checked.. but dna is put into the database.

And that imo i where the issue arises. How can we get them to remove it from those databases (inc a back ups) if we are released with no charge?

CrustySMSgt
06-04-2013, 07:01 AM
This goes int he same category as drones, cameras in public places, and all the rest of the shot people get all wound up about... if you ain't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. Only ones who should be worried are those leaving DNA where it doesn't belong.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-04-2013, 06:36 PM
What about the argument that taking the DNA swab is no different than the process of taking fingerprints for every arrest?

What is going into my body during finger printing? Might as well say everyone deserves a full cavity search as well.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-04-2013, 06:43 PM
Anyone against the ultrasound for pregnant women before killing their baby should be against this as well. The price tag, the invasion of privacy. Might as well say its ok to collect the DNA when you are born just incase you ever become a serial killer or rapist. This big government BS has to stop, there is no need for a DNA test when all I was doing was speeding (which can happen cause it is considered an arrestable offence if they want to).

garhkal
06-04-2013, 07:37 PM
This goes int he same category as drones, cameras in public places, and all the rest of the shot people get all wound up about... if you ain't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. Only ones who should be worried are those leaving DNA where it doesn't belong.

I hate that phrase.. Just cause i am not doing wrong, does NOT mean i should have no issue with being effectively treated like i am (which is what i feel pushing it that everyone's DNA gets databased)..

Just like if i am at home and cop's ask to search my house. Just cause i say no, does not mean i "MUST be guilty of something"..


Anyone against the ultrasound for pregnant women before killing their baby should be against this as well. The price tag, the invasion of privacy. Might as well say its ok to collect the DNA when you are born just incase you ever become a serial killer or rapist. This big government BS has to stop, there is no need for a DNA test when all I was doing was speeding (which can happen cause it is considered an arrestable offence if they want to).

Exactly. It used to be "Get convicted, your DNA is taken and databased. Now it's if we arrest you (even if no charges get filed, your arrest was invalid etc) your dna is taken and filed. At this rate i can easily see it getting to "every US citizen from the moment they are born has their DNA filed.

imported_WINTHORP1
06-05-2013, 11:19 PM
Doesn't really bother me. The military already has everything that could possibly ID me.

garhkal
06-06-2013, 07:16 AM
Someone at a CO's call i heard about (no eye witness so can't say if it was actually true or not) supposedly asked the CO if when he gets out he can petition to have his "DNA" on file with the military removed, just like civilians can if their DNA is taken "for exclusionary purposes".. since iirc the purpose of taking our DNA and keeping it on record is to ID our dead body if too mangled to get a facial recognition done. And once out there is no longer that need.

RobotChicken
06-06-2013, 07:52 AM
Someone at a CO's call i heard about (no eye witness so can't say if it was actually true or not) supposedly asked the CO if when he gets out he can petition to have his "DNA" on file with the military removed, just like civilians can if their DNA is taken "for exclusionary purposes".. since iirc the purpose of taking our DNA and keeping it on record is to ID our dead body if too mangled to get a facial recognition done. And once out there is no longer that need.
Good luck on that! Days of the dog tag between your teeth are over.

Pullinteeth
06-07-2013, 06:40 PM
What constitues a "serious offense?" Jaywalking? Speeding? Smoking pot? Murder? Shoplifiting?