Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests

[alp227]

Source: new york times

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.”

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.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/supreme-court-says-police-can-take-dna-samples.html

[hlthe2b]

1. And what defines a "serious" offense?

I can't believe I may be more in line with Scalia on this...

[L0oniX]

5. "serious" offense? Well we know it isn't lieing a country into a war.

[Major Hogwash]

7. Depends on the arresting authority.

With no set guidelines, crossing against the light could get one's DNA sample taken, theoretically.

We are living in a police state, believe me.
No matter what anyone else says about it, that is what America has become.

[L0oniX]

2. Also posted in GD earlier...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2939251

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Scalia fails again.

Though maybe not in the way you'd expect this time. The government only has about 100 million fingerprint records, so the use of fingerprints for ID is ALSO a fishing expedition for cold cases. NOT for the purposes of establishing ID.

(Ignoring the also-used purpose to tie the suspect to evidence recovered from the scene of a crime)

[happyslug]

10. Fails in what way? Scalia voted AGAINST this rule, i.e he would NOT permit such gathering of DNA.

Scalia wrote the dissent, which was signed by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

The Actual opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf


JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

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. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.

It is obvious that no such noninvestigative motive exists in this case. The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court’s comparison of Maryland’s DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today’s opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Right. And he contrasts this to the gathering of fingerprints for ID.

"It is obvious that no such noninvestigative motive exists in this case. The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court’s comparison of Maryland’s DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today’s opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work."

Fingerprints fail to identify people in state custody in the same manner as Scalia is talking about DNA herein. The government only has about 105 million sets of known fingerprints. What of the other 205 or so million Americans that might need to be 'identified'? Government has no prints for them. So it isn't really an ID tool either, is it?

Truth is, both sets of biometric data, DNA AND fingerprints, are being used in the same manner here. Scalia's argument is flawed.

[happyslug]

13. Scalia even attacks finger printing of non-criminals, i.e. on driver's licenses.

The Court asserts that the taking of fingerprints was “constitutional for generations prior to the introduction” of the FBI’s rapid computer-matching system. Ante, at 22. This bold statement is bereft of citation to authority because there is none for it. The “great expansion in fingerprinting came before the modern era of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” and so we were never asked to decide the legitimacy of the practice. United States v. Kincade, 379 F. 3d 813, 874 (CA9 2004) (Kozinski, J., dissenting).

As fingerprint databases expanded from convicted criminals, to arrestees, to civil servants, to immigrants,
to everyone with a driver’s license, Americans simply “became accustomed to having our fingerprints on file
in some government database.” Ibid. But it is wrong to suggest that this was uncontroversial at the time, or
that this Court blessed universal fingerprinting for “generations” before it was possible to use it effectively for identification

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Well... shit.

I guess *I* fail then.

[KamaAina]

4. Ihre DNA, bitte.

[Socal31]

6. Not a fan.

DNA is more than a fingerprint. We haven't even discovered a fraction of what information it stores or how to interpret it.

Convicted of a crime? Absolutely. That involves a cop, a ADA, a judge, and possibly a jury.

Arrested? That involves a cop.

[OldHippieChick]

8. Thomas didn't vote with Scalia

That's the real reason he was so pissed. Well that, and having to side w/ the liberals! LOL!

[Tumbulu]

9. Sounds good to me- why in the world was this rapist let free anyway?

I am saddened that people think it is OK to get caught for rape simply by checking for dna matches.

I am think this is a good ruling and will help solve many unsolved crimes. I find it amazing to that I am siding with the conservative branch of the court, but in this case I am.

[happyslug]

11. Here is the Actual Opinion, Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomoyor and Kagan were the ones who dissented.

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

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.,joined.

Scalia's final page on this is quite moving:

All parties concede that it would have been entirely permissible, as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, for Maryland to take a sample of King’s DNA as a consequence of his conviction for second-degree assault. So the ironic result of the Court’s error is this: The only arrestees to whom the outcome here will ever make a difference are those who have been acquitted of the crime of arrest (so that their DNA could not have been taken upon conviction). In other words, this Act 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.

Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.
I therefore dissent, and hope that today’s incursion upon the Fourth Amendment, like an earlier one,6
will some day be repudiated.

[DallasNE]

15. It Is Laughable To Say That This Taking Of DNA

Is to identify the suspect in custody. What are they comparing the DNA against that would prove identity? Do they have DNA from birth? Then contrast that against recent cases where death row inmates are asking for DNA to be taken from evidence that could clear them and the government objects with all means possible. But while Scalia makes a valid point it is not the point Kennedy made in the majority opinion, which is valid since DNA is often central to a case, so it is hard to understand where Scalia is coming from other than politics. Here Kennedy identifies the primary purpose of obtaining DNA from a suspect while Scalia is only identifying a secondary purpose (attempting to clear up cold cases).

[midnight]

16. K&R

[progree]

17. "Arrest all them ding dang Occupy (or whatever) protesters and get their DNA"

So anyone who takes part in a protest stands a good chance of having their DNA put into a database. Sounds OK to me, gotta shut up them radic-libs, I guess. Especially those goofy Keystone XL Pipeline protesters. Like Dr. James Hansen, that climate "scientist" who claims the earth is getting warmer.

For that matter, we should give voter ID only to those who submit a DNA sample. Anything to solve crimes, that's what I always say.

What would really help solve crimes, and deter them, is for the government to install cameras in everyone's homes -- just like in Orwell's "1984", although, sadly 29 years too late and counting

[progree]

18. Oh goody, more people to put in the DNA database: 140 NAACP protesters arrested in North Carolina

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- About 140 people have been arrested during the latest weekly demonstration led by the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP against the state's Republican-led General Assembly. MORE: http://news.yahoo.com/140-arrested-nc-during-naacp-131211036.html

Is this what our DU law-and-order contingent really wants?

[Democrats_win]

19. One of the worst rulings ever.

They say this doesn't violate the 4th amendment. What a joke! This truly is the Supreme joke. They're court jesters to the nth degree!