Supreme Court says police can take DNA samples upon arrest

[yo moms]

In the UK this is standard procedure. I had all my shyt recorded when I was arrested for self defense. And they keep it on record too so I can't do shyt without getting caught in my local area

 

[Brown_Pride]

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.

government overreaching or pragmatism?

I really don't know and i see the point in both cases. If this is overturned then quite literally the only people catching a break are criminals. So the yhave your DNA and they check it, you ain't done dirt then there will be no dirt to find. Right now when they fingerprint you they can run it against a database to check your fingerprints against any unidentified fingerprints from crime scenes, are you saying this is also wrong then?

 

[Brown_Pride]

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

 

[daze23]

The Purge Official Trailer #1 (2013) - Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey Thriller HD - YouTube

I just saw that trailer lastnight during the Heat game. I was thinking of making a thread about how it was a 'Libertarian Fantasy' movie

 

[Type Username Here]

I just saw that trailer lastnight during the Heat game. I was thinking of making a thread about how it was a 'Libertarian Fantasy' movie

It would actually be the total opposite in this case, as the government directly controls when it will happen. It's a government mandated event and procedure.

 

[daze23]

It would actually be the total opposite in this case, as the government directly controls when it will happen. It's a government mandated event and procedure.

it's just the whole 'lawless', 'defend yourself' factor. it's like a trip to Libertarian Island for a weekend

I understand the plot is probably more complicated than that

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

it's just the whole 'lawless', 'defend yourself' factor. it's like a trip to Libertarian Island for a weekend

I understand the plot is probably more complicated than that

I remember a few libertarian folks a couple weeks ago talking on here about how awesome survival of the fittest is and how liberals are too weak to consider that a viable option

 

[Mowgli]

In the year 2100 do you all think fingerprints are still going to be the goto method for identifying criminals.

 

[Mowgli]

I just saw that trailer lastnight during the Heat game. I was thinking of making a thread about how it was a 'Libertarian Fantasy' movie

The only guys who want the purge are killers racists and rapists.

 

[daze23]

I remember a few libertarian folks a couple weeks ago talking on here about how awesome survival of the fittest is and how liberals are too weak to consider that a viable option

was that sly's 'conservatives got bigger muscles' thread?

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

was that sly's 'conservatives got bigger muscles' thread?

haha, I think so actually. It's just funny because these cats have no idea how savage and harsh being in that world would be nor do they have basic survival skills

 

[ltheghost]

Dang they just threw the 4th Amendment in the bushes with this decision. I don't normally agree with Scalia on this but even his silly ass could see how this reconstructs the Fourth Amendment. The fact that this relies on science that is not 100% provable all the time is not a good enough reason to throw out the 4th on citizens. Especially with that shyt that happened in MA where the medical examiner got in trouble for falsifying DNA evidence. A lot of people got thrown in jail because she didn't even do her damn job. Dangerous.

So we are putting our faith in the medical examiner to test the DNA....If people knew how under supervised those offices are.

 

[daze23]

I don't normally agree with Scalia on this but even his silly ass could see how this reconstructs the Fourth Amendment.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Breyer and Scalia in Fourth Amendment Cases This Term

Breyer and Scalia in Fourth Amendment Cases This Term

After hearing about today’s 5-4 decision in Maryland v. King, holding (as Jonathan notes below) that the government can collect and analyze DNA incident to arrest without a warrant, some might be surprised that conservative Justice Scalia voted for the defense side while the liberal Justice Breyer voted for the government. They shouldn’t be. In Fourth Amendment cases this Term, that has been a consistent pattern.

Justice Scalia has been on the defense side of every non-unanimous Fourth Amendment case this term: King (today’s case in which he wrote the dissent), Bailey (in which he joined the 6-3 majority), Jardines (in which he wrote the majority), and McNeely (in which he joined the Sotomayor plurality/majority opinion). In contrast, Justice Breyer has been on the government’s side in each of the Term’s non-unanimous Fourth Amendment cases: King (in which he joined Kennedy’s majority), Bailey (in which he wrote the dissent), Jardines (in which he joined the dissent) and McNeely (in which he joined the more government-friendly Roberts concurrence/dissent with Alito).

Some Fourth Amendment cases have drawn out those dynamics in the past. For example, Justice Scalia voted for the defense and Justice Breyer for the government in Arizona v. Gant (2009). But I don’t recall such a consistent run of Fourth Amendment cases in which Justice Scalia was on the defense side and Breyer was on the government side.

What explains the trend? It might just be a coincidence. But I suspect some of it reflects the fact that a lot of the recent cases have involved Fourth Amendment balancing. Scalia dislikes balancing, while Breyer revels in it. Those different instincts may pull their votes in different directions. Also, defense counsel have realized that Justice Scalia is in play in Fourth Amendment cases if you can find him the kind of argument that he finds appealing. So we’re seeing more defense-side briefs targeting Scalia’s vote. But the problem is that Scalia and Breyer look at Fourth Amendment cases in exactly opposite ways. The kind of argument that appeals to Scalia can lose Breyer, and the kind of argument that appeals to Breyer can lose Scalia.

 

[Enzo]

What's with all these 5/4 decisions. It's a joke.

 

[Blackking]

haha, I think so actually. It's just funny because these cats have no idea how savage and harsh being in that world would be nor do they have basic survival skills

I'm not down for lawlessness but.....

u sure about this?