SUPREME COURT: Police Can Force Open Your Mouth And Swab Your DNA

[Red James Cash]

SUPREME COURT: Police Can Force Open Your Mouth And Swab Your DNA

Erin Fuchs | Jun. 3, 2013, 10:32 AM

Read more: Supreme Court Ruling In Maryland V. King - Business Insider

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that police don't need a search warrant before they open your mouth and take a swab of DNA if you've been arrested for a "serious crime."

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that DNA swabs are a "legitimate police booking procedure" that is allowed under the Constitution just like fingerprinting and mugshots.

The court's swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, which said DNA identification has become an important tool to help police identify suspects.

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court's most outspoken conservatives, wrote the dissenting opinion that was joined by three of the court's liberal justices. Scalia's dissent questioned Kennedy's assertion that DNA helps police identify suspects.

"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," Scalia writes in his dissent.

The Supreme Court's decision upholds a Maryland law that was challenged by Alonzo King, whose DNA was taken after he was arrested for pointing a gun at a group of people. Police matched his DNA to a rape that had gone unsolved for six years.

King was convicted of the rape and was given a life prison sentence.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[0121stockpicker]

Its about time. I'm surprised its taken this long for it to get through the SC. I would have thought they would have switched from fingerprints to DNA as a key source for identification years ago. It's too bad it can only be used on those who committed "serious crimes". I would like to see it used on ALL criminals but I think the ACLU fought against that. Think of the thousands of unsolved terrible crimes that could be solved and all the murderers and rapists we could get off the streets. Thanks for posting.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Its about time. I'm surprised its taken this long for it to get through the SC. I would have thought they would have switched from fingerprints to DNA as a key source for identification years ago. It's too bad it can only be used on those who committed "serious crimes". I would like to see it used on ALL criminals but I think the ACLU fought against that. Think of the thousands of unsolved terrible crimes that could be solved and all the murderers and rapists we could get off the streets. Thanks for posting.

Problem is using it on suspects, I see no problem on convicted felons, but major civil liberties violation if used on suspects....

Just because your a suspect does not mean your guilty, if your innocent they violated your rights.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Crispin]

Good post RJC! I agree with this whole heartedly. DNA is a great identification to solve crimes. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear but fear itself.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Personally I would make your DNA your social security number. Think of the fraud, crime, unidentified people etc that could cut down on. Now I know the ACLU would never let that pass but I think it would be great. Just my opinion.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Good post RJC! I agree with this whole heartedly. DNA is a great identification to solve crimes. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear but fear itself.

There goes the 5th amendment out the window Crispin.....

Nothing to fear but fear itself...

Why do you think it takes a court order to get your DNA?

We all know there has never been any corruption in the police departments, never any excessive force or abuse of power by the government....

Better idea let's make all medical records of any one ever under psy care public records after all "nothing to fear but fear itself".



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

Good post RJC! I agree with this whole heartedly. DNA is a great identification to solve crimes. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear but fear itself.

HOMELANDHOMELANDUBERALLES

 

[0121stockpicker]

HOMELANDHOMELANDUBERALLES

I like the second stanza the best. Though Im always shocked they didn't say beer instead of wine??


Germany, Germany above everything,
Above everything in the world,
When, for protection and defence, it always
takes a brotherly stand together.
From the Meuse to the Memel,
From the Adige to the Belt,
Germany, Germany above everything,
Above everything in the world!

German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song
Shall retain in the world
Their old beautiful chime
And inspire us to noble deeds
During all of our life.
German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song!

 

[Red James Cash]

I figured the F.K.O.A.s of the forum would love the original post. And I was right.

 

[Crispin]

I figured the F.K.O.A.s of the forum would love the original post. And I was right.

Your always right RJC. That is why we like you so much. I have no idea what FKOA stands for. Assuming the first letter is censored, what does the rest mean?

 

[Crispin]

There goes the 5th amendment out the window Crispin.....

Nothing to fear but fear itself...

Why do you think it takes a court order to get your DNA?

We all know there has never been any corruption in the police departments, never any excessive force or abuse of power by the government....

Better idea let's make all medical records of any one ever under psy care public records after all "nothing to fear but fear itself".



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

TH: Ouch, dagger to my heart. You are not comparing apples and oranges a bit are you? Sure, what the heck. Lets not stop at psych records. Lets just make everybody's entire medical record public knowledge. Lets get rid of attorney client privilege as well. I'm sure we would all get good legal and medical care that way.

Here is something you may not know: All doctor's have to be fingerprinted and entered into a database in order to get their medical license. Nice, huh? Did I complain, nope, with great power comes great responsibility. I had no fear of letting them do a thorough criminal background check on me. I had nothing to hide.

I think your point is invalid. Police are corrupt and forge/make up evidence anyways. What's the difference between planting a gun at the scene and whatever DNA thing you are imaging up? DNA evidence has also been used to overturned wrongful convictions. What is the difference between finger printing somebody and getting a DNA swab?

 

[onfire]

Crisp ask Dillinger opps he's dead no prints.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Crisp ask Dillinger opps he's dead no prints.

Great little piece of trivia fire. He supposedly burned his prints off with acid or something didnt he? Do you know if it actually worked or is it just an urban legend?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

TH: Ouch, dagger to my heart. You are not comparing apples and oranges a bit are you? Sure, what the heck. Lets not stop at psych records. Lets just make everybody's entire medical record public knowledge. Lets get rid of attorney client privilege as well. I'm sure we would all get good legal and medical care that way.

Here is something you may not know: All doctor's have to be fingerprinted and entered into a database in order to get their medical license. Nice, huh? Did I complain, nope, with great power comes great responsibility. I had no fear of letting them do a thorough criminal background check on me. I had nothing to hide.

I think your point is invalid. Police are corrupt and forge/make up evidence anyways. What's the difference between planting a gun at the scene and whatever DNA thing you are imaging up? DNA evidence has also been used to overturned wrongful convictions. What is the difference between finger printing somebody and getting a DNA swab?

Crispin, you knew those requirements before you chose to be a doctor, so you volunteered to give it to be a Dr. Someone arrested for a misdemeanor having his DNA taken is not volunteering to give it, they have not been convicted of any crime, their only crime is living in the age where our rights are under attack, violated and our Constitution is being ripped apart..

The authors of our Constitution would roll over in their graves on this, Justice Scalia gave a scating desenting opinion on this ruling. I guarantee you our forefathers whould have not thought well of the kings men swiping the inside of their mouths. The right to collect data from someone who has not been charged with anything more than arrested for a speeding ticket was never what our forefathers planned or our Constitution was about.... Collecting data for crimes you may or may not commit in the future is Big Brother, 1984 and Nazi Germany all rolled up into one.... What is next tatooing our arms with numbers.......

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I got to admit this quote from scalias dissent is pretty damn funny. You know these folks are having fun. - "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".

But TH that was the dissenting (losing) view. And I'm sure it will prob be challenged again.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I got to admit I like it, but I certainly would NOT have been surprised if it was found to be unconstitutional. Matter a fact in a little surprised that it didnt.

I think this is a very good example of what a complete foolish statement to anyone to think this stuff is black and white.

 

[thrillathahunt]

No, what is foolish and naïve, is to think that the recent proposed and/or instituted unconstitutional violations of the rights of citizens does not bring us closer to a police state.

 

[0121stockpicker]

No, what is foolish and naïve, is to think that the recent proposed and/or instituted unconstitutional violations of the rights of citizens does not bring us closer to a police state.

Yup we've been moving closer and closer ever since 9/11. Every "war time" government from lincoln, fdr to bush/obama have grabbed more federal power in the name of national security.

bOur legal system is also catching up to all the new technology developed in the last couple of decades. We marvel at what all our new toys in our homes and work can do but all that tech is making it a lot easier for the gov and police to do things that were impossible a number of years ago. Check out the documentary Manhunt on PBS. They have the real time feed from thousands of CCTV cameras (both public and private) all feeding into a central government monitored system (like London). You can say to pull up everyone with a red jacket and in a few seconds it done. It can automatically detect if a bag has been left unattended for a few minutes. Blew my mind.

Best.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No, what is foolish and naïve, is to think that the recent proposed and/or instituted unconstitutional violations of the rights of citizens does not bring us closer to a police state.

As I said, Big Brother, 1984 and Nazi Germany all rolled up and served to the America citizens...... It is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Judge Scalia was not trying to be funny on his opposing view....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

And Lincoln, FDR, McCarthy or any other war time prez / politician. that's the problem with the open ended "war on terrorism". That's why we need to end that "war" rhetoric and dial back the government.