Supreme Court OKs DNA swab upon arrests

[Oldgamer]

Well its looks like the Supreme court decided on this. So if you get arrested you will have your DNA taken, without probable cause, or without warrant. I am sort of on the fence on this one. On the one hand, it can help solve a lot of cold cases, and help to apprehend individuals of serious crimes like rape, and murder. But on the other hand, I worry this, like so many other things can be abused, or mishandled.

In any case, it now has the seal of approval from the SC.

What seems to odd to me, is that you have so many states who do absolutley nothing with DNA kits from rape cases, like in Houston, that just sit on shelves and never get used. What does this mean for us down the road?

As technology goes along pretty soon every citizen will have their DNA and all pertinent information on file, right down to any files concerning mental health.


See link for USA news article on this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-dna-cheek-swab-rape-unsolved-crimes/2116453/

 

[Doppel]

I always knew this was inevitable. It is just another step in our ultimate and unavoidable loss of privacy as technology continues to expose more about us.

Scalia was one of the four dissents and obviously hates this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...after-arrest-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

 

[Druidx]

I think this is wrong but I can’t pinpoint exactly why I feel that way. How is this fundamentally different than getting finger printed when arrested?

 

[Doppel]

I think this is wrong but I can’t pinpoint exactly why I feel that way. How is this fundamentally different than getting finger printed when arrested?

I feel the same way. I just don't like it but not entirely sure why. One key diff, though, is a finger print is ONLY used to form your identity. This could I think be used to infer a great deal more about you in the future.

What do these databases contain besides a unique identity? What can be inferred from the information later on?

 

[Matt1970]

They already fingerprint you without a conviction so how is this any different?

 

[brandonb]

What is the penalty if you refuse? Or do they hold you down and force you to give a sample?

I have an issue with it because I believe there should be more evidence than a match of DNA. Your DNA can be anywhere, and not to mention glitches with software, someone have a typo in a computer program, etc. It wouldn't be such a big deal, but DNA alone can just about convict you at a rate of nearly 100%.

 

[piasabird]

Just do it when they show up for kindergarten or require it for a photo-ID.

Require it for Welfare.

Require it for all physical trama resulting from emergency rooms. i.e. mugging, Gunshots, Knifings, etc. I am assuming criminals eventually end up in an emergency room.

 

[Jimzz]

They already fingerprint you without a conviction so how is this any different?

THIS.

That and the DNA they take they only test like 13 markers. If those match a crime they then get a warrant for the full test and then build off that.
The current DNA test, cheek swab, is less invasive than fingerprints IMO.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"Each has different procedures, but in all cases, only a profile is created. About 13 individual markers out of some 3 billion are isolated from a suspect's DNA. That selective information does not reveal the full genetic makeup of a person and, officials stress, nothing is shared with any other public or private party, including any medical diagnostics."

"In a brief filed by 49 states supporting Maryland, officials also said the information is secure, and retested when an initial "hit" is identified. After a warrant is issued for probable cause, another fresh DNA sample is taken and it is that test that is used to ultimately prosecute in court. Each initial test costs about $30."

 

[Wreckem]

I always knew this was inevitable. It is just another step in our ultimate and unavoidable loss of privacy as technology continues to expose more about us.

Scalia was one of the four dissents and obviously hates this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...after-arrest-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

The interesting thing is who sided with him, the three women on the court. You have the farthest right, agreeing with the farthest left. While those in between making the majority.

Gotta love his footnote on his final sentence of the dissent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

THIS.

That and the DNA they take they only test like 13 markers. If those match a crime they then get a warrant for the full test and then build off that.
The current DNA test, cheek swab, is less invasive than fingerprints IMO.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"Each has different procedures, but in all cases, only a profile is created. About 13 individual markers out of some 3 billion are isolated from a suspect's DNA. That selective information does not reveal the full genetic makeup of a person and, officials stress, nothing is shared with any other public or private party, including any medical diagnostics."

"In a brief filed by 49 states supporting Maryland, officials also said the information is secure, and retested when an initial "hit" is identified. After a warrant is issued for probable cause, another fresh DNA sample is taken and it is that test that is used to ultimately prosecute in court. Each initial test costs about $30."

I'm not sure what your specific objection is. They are saying that they aren't mapping your genome but rather what is necessary for this specific purpose. The point is that the information kept is minimal.

 

[Jimzz]

I'm not sure what your specific objection is. They are saying that they aren't mapping your genome but rather what is necessary for this specific purpose. The point is that the information kept is minimal.

What? Did you even read what I wrote?
I have no objection, I was agreeing with Matt1970.

Heck I want to run Scalia's DNA now. :sneaky:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What? Did you even read what I wrote?
I have no objection, I was agreeing with Matt1970.

Heck I want to run Scalia's DNA now. :sneaky:

Ahh I misunderstood.

 

[HomerJS]

Not sure yet how I feel about this but if it is an unjust arrest records should be destroyed.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Not sure yet how I feel about this but if it is an unjust arrest records should be destroyed.

lol As if.....

 

[Oldgamer]

Well a news reporter gave a good point by saying, you can be apprehended / arrested for just about anything now these days. What is to stop TSA agents from forcing a swab test on you for something minor? Just something to think about.

 

[Doppel]

THIS.

That and the DNA they take they only test like 13 markers. If those match a crime they then get a warrant for the full test and then build off that.
The current DNA test, cheek swab, is less invasive than fingerprints IMO.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"Each has different procedures, but in all cases, only a profile is created. About 13 individual markers out of some 3 billion are isolated from a suspect's DNA. That selective information does not reveal the full genetic makeup of a person and, officials stress, nothing is shared with any other public or private party, including any medical diagnostics."

"In a brief filed by 49 states supporting Maryland, officials also said the information is secure, and retested when an initial "hit" is identified. After a warrant is issued for probable cause, another fresh DNA sample is taken and it is that test that is used to ultimately prosecute in court. Each initial test costs about $30."

Thanks for that. I guess it's really just a super duper finger print; makes me feel more comfortable with it.

It's pretty clear that technology continues to make crime harder.

 

[Fern]

I'm with Scalia on this.

I disagree with this:

..Alito, who called it "the fingerprinting of the 21st century." He noted that the criminal justice system has "lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved."

Although I should read the ruling to be sure, it sounds like the majority ruled for this because it makes finding criminals/solving cases easier. Well, so do searches without warrants and all other manner of violations of the 4th.

Finger prints are sufficient to establish your identity upon arrest. There is no (legitimate) need for the additional step of taking DNA.

The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence,” Scalia wrote. “That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.”

IMO, it looks like they are taking your DNA to check for other crimes they have no basis to believe you committed.

Violation of the 4th.

And Obama supported this?

Fern

 

[Wreckem]

I'm with Scalia on this.

I disagree with this:



Although I should read the ruling to be sure, it sounds like the majority ruled for this because it makes finding criminals/solving cases easier. Well, so do searches without warrants and all other manner of violations of the 4th.

Finger prints are sufficient to establish your identity upon arrest. There is no (legitimate) need for the additional step of taking DNA.



IMO, it looks like they are taking your DNA to check for other crimes they have no basis to believe you committed.

Violation of the 4th.

And Obama supported this?

Fern

Finger prints aren't just used for identification. They are very much used to solve unsolved crimes that have finger print evidence. And they can access your(well most anyones) prints without you ever being arrested/you knowing.

 

[Wreckem]

Well a news reporter gave a good point by saying, you can be apprehended / arrested for just about anything now these days. What is to stop TSA agents from forcing a swab test on you for something minor? Just something to think about.

The holding only allows for swabbing on arrests for serious crimes. Serious crimes however is undefined.

 

[Fern]

Finger prints aren't just used for identification. And they can access your(well most anyones) prints without you ever being arrested/you knowing.

Yeah, but fingerprints are necessary in the arrest process. Even in my small town we've had plenty of 'John Does' in our jail because they refused to identify themselves.

I don't think it can be reasonably argued that fingerprints are unnecessary for identification of arrested persons, or that arrested persons don't need to be identified (our principal of bail alone mandates that identification).

If there is an argument is might be that such fingerprint information should not be used for unrelated crimes. But I think that argument is difficult, if not impossible, to make.

Fern

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The holding only allows for swabbing on arrests for serious crimes. Serious crimes however is undefined.

Which is a pandoras box waiting to be opened.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well its looks like the Supreme court decided on this. So if you get arrested you will have your DNA taken, without probable cause, or without warrant.

Point of clarification: the cops need probable cause to arrest you to begin with. So they can't take this DNA test as part of a booking procedure without first having probable cause for the arrest. What this ruling says is that they don't need PC for the test itself after they already had PC to arrest you. They can't just go randomly taking DNA off people.

 

[bshole]

I am waiting for the day that DNA becomes your new ID. No drivers licenses, credit cards, etc... needed, your body will be your ID. That will be totally cool.

 

[Nintendesert]

Not sure yet how I feel about this but if it is an unjust arrest records should be destroyed.

This is however at the heart of the problems champions of the 2nd amendment have with any sort of documentation of gun ownership, the government, despite laws in many cases to the contrary, never destroy anything and have a penchant for creating vast databases. As technology evolves this will only get worse as the reasons for these databases expands, guns today, felony arrests, then misdemeanors, traffic offenses, everyone while they look for the markers of violent crime? Who knows. There was a reason there were protections put into place in the Constitution against these kinds of things and it's sad to see them whittled away.

 

[HumblePie]

Point of clarification: the cops need probable cause to arrest you to begin with. So they can't take this DNA test as part of a booking procedure without first having probable cause for the arrest. What this ruling says is that they don't need PC for the test itself after they already had PC to arrest you. They can't just go randomly taking DNA off people.

IF it was that simple, I'd be more inclined to agree with the ruling. The thing is, many places have so many crap laws on the books that allows any cop to "arrest" anyone on a drummed up charge. Ask any cop. They all know it can be done. Doesn't matter if the charge being initially brought is tossed out. Although I would think that "fishing" in this sort should not be allowed. While I'm all for catching criminals, this kind of decision opens the door for more innocents to wrongfully accused.