'Enormous' repercussions as court weighs DNA sampling during arrests

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Reader, Jun 3, 2013.

  1. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...court-weighs-dna-sampling-during-arrests?lite

    The Supreme Court is about to decide what one justice says may be its most important criminal procedure case in decades — whether the police have the right to take a DNA sample after they make an arrest.

    The question before the justices is whether taking DNA, often with the quick swab of a cheek, is the latter-day equivalent of fingerprinting or violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

    “This is what’s at stake,” Justice Samuel Alito said during an oral argument Feb. 26. “Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be — that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.”...........

    The question before the court has vast implications: 28 states and the federal government take DNA swabs from people under arrest before they can be judged innocent or guilty. In Maryland alone, DNA samples during arrests have led to 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions since 2009, Katherine Winfree, the state’s chief deputy attorney general, told the justices........

    Prosecutors around the country will be watching the court’s ruling closely. If the justices decide that DNA swabbing during arrest is unconstitutional, untold numbers of cold-case convictions could be appealed.

    Mindful of the implications, the court could narrowly tailor its ruling, said Jeffrey Urdangen, director of the Center for Criminal Defense at the Northwestern University School of Law.

    “The repercussions of this are enormous,” he said.


    More at link......
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads - 'Enormous' repercussions court
    1. TravelingBug
      Replies:
      47
      Views:
      5,142

  3. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's worrisome. I hope they come to the decision that like fingerprints, this non-invasive procedure can be done with any arrest.
     
  4. Sonya610

    Sonya610 Former Member

    Messages:
    7,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The UK has a huge dna database as they have been taking samples on arrest for quite a while. They can not only match directly to individuals but they can match to family members in the database.

    Some groups will be lobbying hard against this though. They will say it unfairly targets certain groups and claim it is due to profiling etc....

     
  5. SurfieTX

    SurfieTX New Member

    Messages:
    12,156
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...olds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite
     
  6. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Much more a threat to civil liberties than are gun registers.
     
  7. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe. I can see a day when DNA samples will be taken at birth. Criminals deserve to be caught, so I'm not against this.
     
  8. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A future government then will have at its disposal the ability to frame any and each of us for whatever it might please them to choose.
     
  9. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You know what? Maybe that is true. And maybe I will regret it later. But each and every time they recover a little body with DNA on it, I will be happy. And I will remember why I gave up that little piece of civil liberties.
     
  10. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think they already have that ability.
     
  11. 21merc7

    21merc7 New Member

    Messages:
    10,491
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True, they can. But having your DNA can lead to DNA manipulation. There are documented cases of it having already happened. That may be what wfg is trying to relate. Not only that, if there are samples, they can easily be dropped into files. DNA is as suspect to tampering as anything else. It is frightening. Even more frightening that it is not made common knowledge, and usually only defense attorneys bother to uncover it.
     
  12. Elley Mae

    Elley Mae The enemy is here. beware

    Messages:
    16,854
    Likes Received:
    453
    Trophy Points:
    83
  13. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady Active Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    One of these justices doesn't belong.... :crazy:

    Joking aside, I'm encouraged to see Scalia in the dissent.
     
  14. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At times they would seem to but not to the extent that providing DNA gives - Lord God the Great DNA, which seems to mesmerize people into forgetting that, as with all things, humans are testing and interpreting the alleged evidence and humans can make mistakes. (Not to mention it's easy to plant at a scene, thus to reap the worship of juries at trial.)

    It's fair that those convicted of felonies should provide DNA samples - that's status quo now, at least in many places. For those arrested, who have not gone to trial yet? Makes a mockery of civil liberties and distorts the role of the court system entirely, no matter what Justice Alito says. (Weird for me to be on the libertarian side of this matter!)
     
  15. Elley Mae

    Elley Mae The enemy is here. beware

    Messages:
    16,854
    Likes Received:
    453
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But civil liberties advocates say the move comes at too high a price, given the amount of personal information that a DNA sample potentially can give the government.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-dna-20130604,0,7152727.story

    "If you believe that a DNA search will identify someone arrested for bank robbery, you must believe that it will identify someone arrested for running a red light," said Scalia, reading a portion of his dissent from the bench. "In the end, logic will win out. 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, for whatever reason."
     
  16. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As far as planting your DNA or using your DNA for something, it is possible anyway. If someone wants to target you, all they have to do is pick up an item. Any of your garbage cans have plenty of samples. With the ability to replicate DNA now, they can make enough DNA to use.
     
  17. SurfieTX

    SurfieTX New Member

    Messages:
    12,156
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gattaca is a really good movie that touches on the implications of this.
     
  18. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. If LE wants to frame you, they can, whether they obtain your DNA at time of questioning or the day you're born. To obtain a DNA sample only after a conviction would allow alot of first time rapists and murders to go unpunished. As far as testing, the defense can send the same samples to independant labs. Sure humans make mistakes and there will never be a way around that.
     
  19. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, except that collecting DNA from objects involves probably a much greater cost for testing than does collecting it on a sterile swab, and also it increases a defense attorney's chances of being able to puncture holes in your evidence at trial. So: not altogether cost effective - jurisdictions aren't made out of money, after all - and prosecutors will be more leery of it, understandably so.
     
  20. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing has changed here. The DNA was being collected and all the Supremes did was to allow it to continue. As we've all seen on the various forensic shows, when it's not given voluntarily, detectives will collect it by means of discarded drinking cups, discarded cigarette butts etc., or by court order.
     
  21. OneLostGrl

    OneLostGrl I'm going against the grain- I'm going sane

    Messages:
    14,316
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I am a convicted felon (drug offence, I have been clean and crime free since 2002).. My DNA is in 2 states, the one I was arrested and convicted in and the state I moved to years later ( I was still on probation when I moved out of state and the rule is, if a felon moves out of state before "serving" their sentence they have to give their DNA to the state they move to.. AND pay for it themselves). I have no problem with this. I think the whole thing is a good idea, myself.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice