Supreme Court says police can take DNA samples upon arrest

[daze23]

No, the claim that the government used in court was that they would use DNA as an ID tool but what actually happens is they then run yoiur DNA through a database to try and see if it is tied to any open crimes in the system which is unconstitutional. That was the issue in the Maryland case, not that DNA was used for identification purposes but rather the authorities used it to do a widespread and open search to see if the guy's DNA mathced any DNA found in other cases.
Say you get popped for something innocuous as public drunkenness; that public indebriation charge does not give the police the probable cause to make the leap to assuming that you are also possibly a suspected serial rapist so they can then do a comparison check on your DNA against DNA that had been found in any open rape cases in their systems.
This is a case of government overreach.

how is that different from how fingerprints are used. if they find a fingerprint at a crime scene, they're gonna compare it to a database of fingerprints

not to mention they specify "a suspect facing charges relating to a serious offense", so things like "public drunkenness" seem like a strawman

 

[Jello Biafra]

how is that different from how fingerprints are used. if they find a fingerprint at a crime scene, they're gonna compare it to a database of fingerprints

not to mention they specify "a suspect facing charges relating to a serious offense", so things like "public drunkenness" seem like a strawman

Scalia's dissent isn't about what they claim the new rule will be sued for officially but rather how it will be used moving forward.
Even using your quote of "a suspect facing charges relating to a serious offense", the argument against it is that using your DNA in regards to the crime youare charged with is fine but to then use yopur DNA to see if you are also involved in some other cvrime that there is no reasonable proof of suspicion is where the overreach comes in. The state appeals court in the Maryland case made the right decision when they said that "that police could not take a DNA sample from someone who is presumed innocent of a crime simply to fish around for other possible crimes he or she may have committed".
Even fingerprints are not supposed to be used in the manner you are stating. Presently fingerprinting is done to verify identity and then check to see if you have any previous convictions. Fingerprints are not supposed to be used to fish around to see if you are guilty of another crime that you are currently not under suspicion of.

I can't believe that I am even quoting this dude this but this quote from Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case should be ther final word on this entire issue:

"Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail"

 

[Bud Bundy]

Some one I know got sent to prision because when they applied for a job and they ran there fingerprints they found out they were at the scene of a murder.

Was that persons forth amendment rights violated.

 

[daze23]

Even fingerprints are not supposed to be used in the manner you are stating. Presently fingerprinting is done to verify identity and then check to see if you have any previous convictions. Fingerprints are not supposed to be used to fish around to see if you are guilty of another crime that you are currently not under suspicion of.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/october/latent_102510/latent_102510

Two Cold Cases Solved
Fingerprint Technology Played Key Role

10/25/10

January 1972. A man was murdered—stabbed more than 50 times in his San Diego, California home. His house had been ransacked, and his car was stolen. Police recovered latent fingerprints from the crime scene, but at that time there was no national automated system available to match the prints. All possible leads were followed, but the case eventually went cold.

October 1978. Similar story: A man was stabbed to death inside his home in Bird Key, Florida. The house had been burglarized, and his car taken. Police found latent prints on the victim’s television set, but weren’t able to search the prints on a national level. Investigators exhausted every lead, but they could never identify the perpetrator.

What do these decades-old murder cases have in common? Two things. They were both recently solved by local law enforcement…with the assistance of the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS, a national repository of fingerprints and criminal history records launched in 1999. And both cases were chosen by our Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) to receive its “Hit of the Year” award.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaWeZqazEF8

The annual CJIS award was first presented in 2007 in an effort to share details among police agencies about major cold cases solved when IAFIS identified latent prints.

 

[daze23]

Some one I know got sent to prision because when they applied for a job and they ran there fingerprints they found out they were at the scene of a murder.

Was that persons forth amendment rights violated.

that kinda shyt is mad wack. what kind of job runs your prints? and what was he eventually charged with?

 

[ExodusNirvana]

can you explain how you see it as being very different from fingerprinting

My various co-signings of peoples posts in this thread don't give you a clear understanding of my view on this?

And a "serious offense" is about as broad as the term "weapon of mass destruction" in 2013

 

[blackzeus]

The difference between fingerprinting and DNA sampling is that in the case of DNA it is a more obtrusive procedure that is completely in opposition to the Fourth Amendment. It is unconstitutional to search a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for assuming that the individual is guilty of said crime or even if the individual has any incriminating knowledge or evidence of said crime.
This whole DNA sampling thing is not to ID people like fingerprints are used for but rather the end goal is to create a comprehensive DNA database that will then be used to tie people crimes that tey have not been arrested for. If you want to get a US citizen's DNA then you should be forced to provide some sort of probable cause to a judge and procure a warrant. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be able to take anyone's bodily fluids.
And the fact that an asshat like Antonin Scalia could see that this ruling was unconstitutional should be enough to answer the dumbass question of "What's so bad about it?" that so many are asking.

Somebody gets it

 

[Bud Bundy]

that kinda shyt is mad wack. what kind of job runs your prints? and what was he eventually charged with?

She was applying for job in child care of some kind.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

We live in a country where it's still up in the air whether or not a man committed a crime by leaving his home to shoot an unarmed teen because he "looked suspicious" and evidence shows that there may have been some attempt a cover up?

And yet there is no eyebrow raised when police departments are given the ability to create DNA databases?

In the same country where whether or not you believe OJ is guilty, there was blood planted at the scene of a...serious crime...?

fukking Twilight Zone...all of a sudden fingerprinting is not good enough huh?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

We live in a country where it's still up in the air whether or not a man committed a crime by leaving his home to shoot an unarmed teen because he "looked suspicious" and evidence shows that there may have been some attempt a cover up?

And yet there is no eyebrow raised when police departments are given the ability to create DNA databases?

In the same country where whether or not you believe OJ is guilty, there was blood planted at the scene of a...serious crime...?

fukking Twilight Zone...all of a sudden fingerprinting is not good enough huh?

You're not ready for the future are you?

 

[Bud Bundy]

We live in a country where it's still up in the air whether or not a man committed a crime by leaving his home to shoot an unarmed teen because he "looked suspicious" and evidence shows that there may have been some attempt a cover up?

And yet there is no eyebrow raised when police departments are given the ability to create DNA databases?

In the same country where whether or not you believe OJ is guilty, there was blood planted at the scene of a...serious crime...?

fukking Twilight Zone...all of a sudden fingerprinting is not good enough huh?

I get where you are coming from. But at the end of day it is still up to courts to decide if some one is guilty or not and that part of the justice system always relied on money and race. shyt people are in jail right now for less evidence then DNA.

 

[H@LLOW]

Good. If you have nothing to hide, you should be Gucci man.

 

[daze23]

police falsifying evidence, and various corruptions in the justice system, are separate issues. it seems that type of slippery slope argument can be applied to any piece of evidence

 

[blackzeus]

police falsifying evidence, and various corruptions in the justice system, are separate issues. it seems that type of slippery slope argument can be applied to any piece of evidence

Arguing against police misuse is a slippery slope now?

 

[daze23]

Arguing against police misuse is a slippery slope now?

like I said, it can apply to any piece of evidence. you might as well throw the whole justice system out, because there's the chance of corruption. I'm actually down for that, but I think that's a little outside of the scope of this thread, comrades