pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
SCOTUS: TAKE THEIR DNA
#1
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130603/DA6MB4680.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.

"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.

But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.

"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#2
[Image: grab-a-pitchfork-and-flaming-torch.png]
Reply
#3
There are some very attractive female police officers who I'd gladly give my DNA to...
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#4
5-4 decision - Question was whether or not this practice violates the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/sup...k&_r=1&

Quote:WASHINGTON — The police may take DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The federal government and 28 states authorize the practice, and law enforcement officials say it is a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes. But the court said the testing was justified by a different reason: to identify the suspect in custody.

“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,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, “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.”

Normally law-and-order Justice Scalia was a big surprise. Vehement dissent.

Quote:Justice Antonin Scalia summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move signaling deep disagreement. He accused the majority of an unsuccessful sleight of hand, one that “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” The point of DNA testing as it is actually practiced, he said, is to solve cold cases, not to identify the suspect in custody.

So there you have it. DNA checksum databases are now protected.

And in fact, I think Scalia says what you're probably already thinking...

Quote:But the Fourth Amendment forbids searches without reasonable suspicion to gather evidence about an unrelated crime, he said, a point the majority did not dispute. “Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Justice Scalia said from the bench.
Reply
#5
Ack... of course Pocketprotector beat me to it: Shrug

http://www.pa2a.org/thread-scotus-rules-...e-arrested
Reply
#6
Scalia has a major point along with the liberal justices who joined him...

This decision only does one thing: authorize the state to keep DNA of people who are accused, but don't get convicted of crimes. All 50 states already keep DNA of convicted felons. The DNA is available to police and investigators already.

If you were arrested for "disturbing the peace" because you were at a sit-in at say, a union protest, you're swabbing now stays on the record forever. You think those DNA markers are ever gonna be deleted now? Nah.

Can't wait for the time when they figure out how to make smartchips cheaply enough with enough memory and speed that they'll ask us to have our DNA swabbing checksum put on state IDs like DLs.

And if you don't submit, the terrorists win. Ninja
Reply
#7
This is why we need to elect Republican Presidents so we don't have a Liberal SC making these terrible decisions. /sarc[/u]
Deal_me_in, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#8
It's the "BILL OF RIGHTS" not the bill of "needs"
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  SCOTUS kevindsingleton 5 906 06-29-2015, 10:16 AM
Last Post: halftrack
  Whistleblower: NSA targeted SCOTUS, all domestic communication being recorded. TheWolff 4 1,012 08-22-2013, 11:09 AM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot
  4 Dem Officials Plead Guilty To Election Fraud: Court Ordered DNA Samples middlefinger 0 642 03-14-2013, 04:30 PM
Last Post: middlefinger
  SCOTUS - did you vote w/ this in mind? IF NOT - you will reap what you've sown Publican 55 4,598 11-09-2012, 09:55 AM
Last Post: billamj
  It doesn't matter who wins, a look at SCOTUS IronSight 67 5,381 11-02-2012, 10:47 AM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.