Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Wiggs on June 03, 2013, 08:45:12 AM
-
Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest#comments
By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.
The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.
The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.
Under those specifications, the court said, “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.”
While a cheek swab does constitute a search under the law, the court noted that it requires “but a light touch” and no surgical intrusion — a critical point, the court said, in determining whether it was reasonable.
At an oral argument in February, Justice Samuel Alito called the question perhaps the most important criminal procedure case the court had taken up in decades. Twenty-eight states and the federal government take DNA swabs from people under arrest before they can be tried.
The case arose from the arrest of a 26-year-old Maryland man, Alonzo King, in 2009 on a charge of second-degree assault. The police took a swab of DNA from his cheek, ran it through a database and matched it to an unsolved rape from six years earlier.
King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for the 2009 assault. The Maryland Court of Appeals later reversed the rape conviction on the grounds that the DNA sample was an unreasonable search.
“Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes,” Scalia wrote in his dissent. “Then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane.”
In an allusion to the technique of taking a swab from the cheek, Scalia wrote: “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.”
The Maryland law restricts DNA swabbing to people arrested for certain violent crimes, but justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, worried during the oral argument that other laws might not be so restrictive. Roberts wondered why they couldn’t be applied to simple traffic stops.
Roberts voted with the majority Monday, as did Alito, who tipped his hand at the oral argument by saying that DNA sampling “involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the court’s swing vote, delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, who usually votes with the court’s conservatives, and Stephen Breyer, who generally votes with the liberals, also voted with the majority.
The court’s majority ruling also said that the government has an interesting in identifying a person under arrest so that a judge can make an informed decision about granting bail. Today, it takes as long as two and a half weeks for DNA tests to come back, but lawyers noted before the court that instant DNA testing is not far off.
-
Once a person has been locked up by LAPD or any police force unless you have lots of money and hi power attorney it's always guilty before proven innocent, if you don't believe me catch a case people
-
Well I've never been arrested and now I have even more so reason why I'd like not to be. Having your DNA on file in a database. They'll make it easier to get arrested. i.e. lower the BAC level among other shit.
-
I am very much opposed to this. I am also opposed to taking DNA from someone without their expressed consent.
-
basically you just described Black people and the US legal system. Guilty until proven innocent
-
Well I've never been arrested and now I have even more so reason why I'd like not be. Having your DNA on file in a database. They'll make it easier to get arrested. i.e. lower the BAC level among other shit.
The last part...easier to get arrested means more money in the state's pockets. Which means more officers, more judges, more magistrates, more clerks, more public defenders, more District Attorneys, more probation officers. It's a money making scheme.
-
The case arose from the arrest of a 26-year-old Maryland man, Alonzo King, in 2009 on a charge of second-degree assault. The police took a swab of DNA from his cheek, ran it through a database and matched it to an unsolved rape from six years earlier.
King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for the 2009 assault. The Maryland Court of Appeals later reversed the rape conviction on the grounds that the DNA sample was an unreasonable search.
I am very much opposed to this. I am also opposed to taking DNA from someone without their expressed consent.
So we let rapists off scott-free just because they don't consent to the DNA sample?
-
So we let rapists off scott-free just because they don't consent to the DNA sample?
Get a warrant.
-
Get a warrant.
Supreme Court allows police to take DNA sample without warrant
By Sam Baker - 06/03/13 10:51 AM ET
Police can take DNA samples from those under arrest the same as they take fingerprints and photographs, the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision on Monday.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303019-supreme-court-allows-police-to-take-dna-sample-without-warrant#ixzz2VAavk268
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
-
Supreme Court allows police to take DNA sample without warrant
By Sam Baker - 06/03/13 10:51 AM ET
Police can take DNA samples from those under arrest the same as they take fingerprints and photographs, the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision on Monday.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303019-supreme-court-allows-police-to-take-dna-sample-without-warrant#ixzz2VAavk268
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
And its a total bullshit ruling. The court completely missed the boat.
-
Land of the free, home of the brave. . . . discontinued since 1980.
-
Scalia is the man.
I dislike how the media describes him as a "conservative" in an effort to say that he would be in favor of government infiltration into our constitutional rights to privacy.
Justice Scalia sees the Constitution for what it is. A document made up of words. It is not a "living document" that evolves with the times. That is what Amendments are for. Hence why we have the Separation of Powers.
-
lol at the potential crims moaning about having DNA taken so they have to behave themselves.
-
Scalia is the man.
I dislike how the media describes him as a "conservative" in an effort to say that he would be in favor of government infiltration into our constitutional rights to privacy.
Justice Scalia sees the Constitution for what it is. A document made up of words. It is not a "living document" that evolves with the times. That is what Amendments are for. Hence why we have the Separation of Powers.
it is a living document. If it wasn't we would still have slavery.
-
I cannot believe our highest Court has ruled in this manner.
How is this not a violation on one's privacy rights? Doesn't one have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their DNA?
-
basically you just described Black people and the US legal system. Guilty until proven innocent
I have no problem with that.....
-
basically you just described Black people and the US legal system. Guilty until proven innocent
Don't forget the Mexicans.
-
I have no problem with that.....
You'll have a problem with it now as it applies to you.
-
it is a living document. If it wasn't we would still have slavery.
Did you not read where I said that is why we have Amendments?
The Legislative Branch is responsible for that.
Courts should not be in the position of Legislating.
-
Did you not read where I said that is why we have Amendments?
The Legislative Branch is responsible for that.
Courts should not be in the position of Legislating.
That is why it is considered a living document. It can be altered through amendments to keep up with the times. I don't find this a completely revolting idea considering the time it was written, as long as these amendments do not infringe on existing rights.
-
Don't forget the Mexicans.
And whites that aren't rich...which is 99%
-
;D
-
So what happens if you refuse to give a sample?
-
How does a swab of your cheek invade your rights? I guess you're talking about your "right" to get away with past and future crimes.
-
So what happens if you refuse to give a sample?
You would most likely, by force, be placed in restraits and the sample would be taken from you.
-
You would most likely, by force, be placed in restraits and the sample would be taken from you.
well that ain't kosher.
-
You'll have a problem with it now as it applies to you.
No......I have no problem with it, I'm not a fucking criminal.
-
No......I have no problem with it, I'm not a fucking criminal.
It's not about being a criminal, it's about invasion of your rights. If you can't see that, you're an idiot.
-
basically you just described Black people and the US legal system. Guilty until proven innocent
he just described everyone except rich politicians, lobbyists and ceo's in the US legal system
-
It's not about being a criminal, it's about invasion of your rights. If you can't see that, you're an idiot.
'Rights' are simply things other people allow you to have.
-
'Rights' are simply things other people allow you to have.
Correct. They're privileges.
-
Correct. They're privileges.
And you earn privileges so they by definition are not a right.
-
It's not about being a criminal, it's about invasion of your rights. If you can't see that, you're an idiot.
The sample is taken after you've been arrested.....here's a hint puffboy, don't get arrested.
-
How does a swab of your cheek invade your rights? I guess you're talking about your "right" to get away with past and future crimes.
0
The method of how they obtain your DNA has nothing to so with whether your rights are being invaded.
-
That is why it is considered a living document. It can be altered through amendments to keep up with the times. I don't find this a completely revolting idea considering the time it was written, as long as these amendments do not infringe on existing rights.
Archer, you are out of your element.
The Judiciary takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. They should NEVER interpret it to mean something it does not specifically say. That is what the Legislature is for. A different branch. Hence the separation of powers.
Scalia, a conservative, fully understands his charge. Sadly, other Justices do not.
-
Court got this one correct. Ruling that it is akin to fingerprints, makes sense.
-
You would most likely, by force, be placed in restraits and the sample would be taken from you.
tdongz would insist that they perform a rectal scraping instead