High court authorizes routine DNA collection

[Quantum Windbag]

As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime...
'It's not that difficult to acquire a DNA sample. Heck if a person enters a room and a hair with follicle falls onto a desk or table at which they sat, DNA can be collected from that.
Or the perspiration off a chair handle or arm. A coffee cup, Soda can, water bottle. Simple stuff.
The SCOTUS dealt with the notion of whether or not a person is under arrest in police custody must submit to the harvesting of a DNA sample.
I am not sure if there is a distinction between the finger printing of a suspect and a saliva sample.

There is no time that you can be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of arrest status. Per the 5th amendment, you absolutely have the right to remain silent if you are not under arrest.

That is true but not accurate.
For example, per legal precedent we do not have the right to remain silent when upon a traffic stop a police officer asks routine basic questions, such as, do you know why I stopped you?...Or, are you the owner of this vehicle? What is your name and address?
Or if taken to a police station for an interview as a person of interest or witness.
Maranda only applies to those placed under arrest. It is at that point the Maranda Warning is to be given. Not before.
Police are given wide latitude to compel statements once one has refused or declines their Maranda Rights and offers to answer voluntarily.
If a person is not under arrest, police can use deceptive methods, such as offering liquid refreshment with the idea of collecting DNA.
Or if in a search of a crime victim's premises, hair, blood, saliva and other bodily fluids are collected without a warrant. No warrant is required. DNA samples may be collected from these substances. I think the SCOTUS ruled in the case that DNA is equivalent to a finger print.

That is complete bullshit. If an officer asks you if know why he stopped you you are not required to answer.

As for DNA, just keep the trash and they can't do a damn thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is nothing strange about it. Scalia thinks the constitution allows the government to regulate what people do in private.

That's an absurd and false claim.

Scalia has no problem with laws making sexual conduct between consenting adults illegal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Scalia has no problem with laws making sexual conduct between consenting adults illegal.

Cite?

 

[bendog]

There is nothing strange about it. Scalia thinks the constitution allows the government to regulate what people do in private.

That's an absurd and false claim.

Scalia has no problem with laws making sexual conduct between consenting adults illegal.

There's that.

Still, it's an interesting concept that the govt can compell me to give a sample if they have enough probable cause to take me into custody and "book me," before I even see a Judge or am allowed access to an attorney, and the sample has nothing to do with their probable cause I did something illegal, and the purpose is to test it to see if I've committed a past crime for which I've never been accused, or to hold the sample and test it against future crimes that have not yet occurred.

I don't think the majority's reasoning is totally absurd ...

The Supreme Court disagreed on Monday. The Court found that the public policy value of having a policy of routine DNA sampling of arrested persons is so great, and DNA technology so efficient, that this far outweighs the minimal intrusion on privacy that is entailed when police take a DNA sample.

Opinion recap: Solving ?cold cases? made easier : SCOTUSblog

But, it's definitely an expansion of state power.

 

[Circe]

Still, it's an interesting concept that the govt can compell me to give a sample if they have enough probable cause to take me into custody and "book me," before I even see a Judge or am allowed access to an attorney, and the sample has nothing to do with their probable cause I did something illegal, and the purpose is to test it to see if I've committed a past crime for which I've never been accused, or to hold the sample and test it against future crimes that have not yet occurred.

There seems to be an undercurrent here that somehow we should give criminals a sporting chance to get away with their crimes ---- in the past or in the future. And that the DNA cataloging is unfair to that sporting change.

I don't want criminals to have a sporting chance.

 

[bendog]

Still, it's an interesting concept that the govt can compell me to give a sample if they have enough probable cause to take me into custody and "book me," before I even see a Judge or am allowed access to an attorney, and the sample has nothing to do with their probable cause I did something illegal, and the purpose is to test it to see if I've committed a past crime for which I've never been accused, or to hold the sample and test it against future crimes that have not yet occurred.

There seems to be an undercurrent here that somehow we should give criminals a sporting chance to get away with their crimes ---- in the past or in the future. And that the DNA cataloging is unfair to that sporting change.

I don't want criminals to have a sporting chance.

Oh, I understand, and as a husband and father I agree. But, there was that awful scifi movie a couple of years ago, where there was a means to identify who would commit a crime before it occured, and then the govt terminated that person. And, that's a pretty common theme. In a sense this is an expansion of how much the State can know about a person. I'm not really arguing against it, because it seems similar to fingerprints, but any expansion make me nervous.

Ironically, Scalia and the three most liberal Justices voted against it. And, more ironically, Scalia does have a sordid catalogue of anti-gay quotes. Yet, here he's for the individual over the State. I'm sure that cuts across some more partisan views here of personal rights and state power.

 

[Circe]

...there was that awful scifi movie a couple of years ago, where there was a means to identify who would commit a crime before it occured, and then the govt terminated that person.

Yeah, Minority Report with Tom Cruise. Actually, I thought it was pretty good; thought-provoking and a great greenhouse scene, a gene-splice scientist woman who has her houseplants trained as guardplants. Now THERE's DNA manipulation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Still, it's an interesting concept that the govt can compell me to give a sample if they have enough probable cause to take me into custody and "book me," before I even see a Judge or am allowed access to an attorney, and the sample has nothing to do with their probable cause I did something illegal, and the purpose is to test it to see if I've committed a past crime for which I've never been accused, or to hold the sample and test it against future crimes that have not yet occurred.

There seems to be an undercurrent here that somehow we should give criminals a sporting chance to get away with their crimes ---- in the past or in the future. And that the DNA cataloging is unfair to that sporting change.

I don't want criminals to have a sporting chance.

There seems to be a massive amount of ignorance on display here by people who think that the government should be able to collect DNA form people who have not been convicted of a crime.

Tell you what, given the fact that it is already legal to collect DNA from anyone who has been convicted of misdemeanors, what possible need is there to allow them to collect DNA from innocent people? Should they be able to demand DNA from everyone who shows up for any government service? Make it part of the routine information required to get a Social Security card? This is not about letting criminals get away with anything, it is about protecting innocent people from the government.

 

[bendog]

Still, it's an interesting concept that the govt can compell me to give a sample if they have enough probable cause to take me into custody and "book me," before I even see a Judge or am allowed access to an attorney, and the sample has nothing to do with their probable cause I did something illegal, and the purpose is to test it to see if I've committed a past crime for which I've never been accused, or to hold the sample and test it against future crimes that have not yet occurred.

There seems to be an undercurrent here that somehow we should give criminals a sporting chance to get away with their crimes ---- in the past or in the future. And that the DNA cataloging is unfair to that sporting change.

I don't want criminals to have a sporting chance.

There seems to be a massive amount of ignorance on display here by people who think that the government should be able to collect DNA form people who have not been convicted of a crime.

Tell you what, given the fact that it is already legal to collect DNA from anyone who has been convicted of misdemeanors, what possible need is there to allow them to collect DNA from innocent people? Should they be able to demand DNA from everyone who shows up for any government service? Make it part of the routine information required to get a Social Security card? This is not about letting criminals get away with anything, it is about protecting innocent people from the government.

yes and no. If I'm arrested and "booked," the govt gets my fingerprints. If I join the military, the govt gets my fingerprints, and my dna I believe. If I apply for a myrid of jobs, my prospective employer gets my fingerprints, and does a criminal check.

It's a balancing act, and the court found a strong govt interest in solving crimes, and I'd think this would go a long way to impacting serial rapists and killers who travel from city to city. The court found the intrusion was minimal.

I can't say that reasoning is totally spurious. Nevertheless, it is an intrusion. Still, it's not collecting dna from every living person. Nor is it the kind of warrantless wiretap bushii wanted. I'm not sure the current FISA court taps aren't more of an intrusion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There seems to be an undercurrent here that somehow we should give criminals a sporting chance to get away with their crimes ---- in the past or in the future. And that the DNA cataloging is unfair to that sporting change.

I don't want criminals to have a sporting chance.

There seems to be a massive amount of ignorance on display here by people who think that the government should be able to collect DNA form people who have not been convicted of a crime.

Tell you what, given the fact that it is already legal to collect DNA from anyone who has been convicted of misdemeanors, what possible need is there to allow them to collect DNA from innocent people? Should they be able to demand DNA from everyone who shows up for any government service? Make it part of the routine information required to get a Social Security card? This is not about letting criminals get away with anything, it is about protecting innocent people from the government.

yes and no. If I'm arrested and "booked," the govt gets my fingerprints. If I join the military, the govt gets my fingerprints, and my dna I believe. If I apply for a myrid of jobs, my prospective employer gets my fingerprints, and does a criminal check.

It's a balancing act, and the court found a strong govt interest in solving crimes, and I'd think this would go a long way to impacting serial rapists and killers who travel from city to city. The court found the intrusion was minimal.

I can't say that reasoning is totally spurious. Nevertheless, it is an intrusion. Still, it's not collecting dna from every living person. Nor is it the kind of warrantless wiretap bushii wanted. I'm not sure the current FISA court taps aren't more of an intrusion.

Once again, fingerprints are not DNA.

I see no need to balance the government's desire to solve crimes with the rights of innocent people. It would be a lot easier if the government could lock down an entire city every time there is a murder and subject the entire population to mandatory interrogation using truth serum. I don't think anyone would see that as an acceptable level of balance. I also see no need for them to be able to ask me where I was at the time of said murder. The only real concern here is the rights of individuals not to be harassed by the government, even if a crime was committed.

 

[Contumacious]

They are only allowed to do this with serious felonies?

In 10 years or less, the failure to return your overdue library book will be a serious crime.

Mark my words.

 

[bendog]

There seems to be a massive amount of ignorance on display here by people who think that the government should be able to collect DNA form people who have not been convicted of a crime.

Tell you what, given the fact that it is already legal to collect DNA from anyone who has been convicted of misdemeanors, what possible need is there to allow them to collect DNA from innocent people? Should they be able to demand DNA from everyone who shows up for any government service? Make it part of the routine information required to get a Social Security card? This is not about letting criminals get away with anything, it is about protecting innocent people from the government.

yes and no. If I'm arrested and "booked," the govt gets my fingerprints. If I join the military, the govt gets my fingerprints, and my dna I believe. If I apply for a myrid of jobs, my prospective employer gets my fingerprints, and does a criminal check.

It's a balancing act, and the court found a strong govt interest in solving crimes, and I'd think this would go a long way to impacting serial rapists and killers who travel from city to city. The court found the intrusion was minimal.

I can't say that reasoning is totally spurious. Nevertheless, it is an intrusion. Still, it's not collecting dna from every living person. Nor is it the kind of warrantless wiretap bushii wanted. I'm not sure the current FISA court taps aren't more of an intrusion.

Once again, fingerprints are not DNA.

I see no need to balance the government's desire to solve crimes with the rights of innocent people. It would be a lot easier if the government could lock down an entire city every time there is a murder and subject the entire population to mandatory interrogation using truth serum. I don't think anyone would see that as an acceptable level of balance. I also see no need for them to be able to ask me where I was at the time of said murder. The only real concern here is the rights of individuals not to be harassed by the government, even if a crime was committed.

Argument recap: Does crime-solving trump privacy? : SCOTUSblog

I'm no DNA expert, but frankly the opposition to the law did not press this argument of the state using the sample to produce an entire dna profile, as the law proscribes that. Given the lawyers arguing the case didn't go there, I think it must be a rabbit hole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes and no. If I'm arrested and "booked," the govt gets my fingerprints. If I join the military, the govt gets my fingerprints, and my dna I believe. If I apply for a myrid of jobs, my prospective employer gets my fingerprints, and does a criminal check.

It's a balancing act, and the court found a strong govt interest in solving crimes, and I'd think this would go a long way to impacting serial rapists and killers who travel from city to city. The court found the intrusion was minimal.

I can't say that reasoning is totally spurious. Nevertheless, it is an intrusion. Still, it's not collecting dna from every living person. Nor is it the kind of warrantless wiretap bushii wanted. I'm not sure the current FISA court taps aren't more of an intrusion.

Once again, fingerprints are not DNA.

I see no need to balance the government's desire to solve crimes with the rights of innocent people. It would be a lot easier if the government could lock down an entire city every time there is a murder and subject the entire population to mandatory interrogation using truth serum. I don't think anyone would see that as an acceptable level of balance. I also see no need for them to be able to ask me where I was at the time of said murder. The only real concern here is the rights of individuals not to be harassed by the government, even if a crime was committed.

Argument recap: Does crime-solving trump privacy? : SCOTUSblog

I'm no DNA expert, but frankly the opposition to the law did not press this argument of the state using the sample to produce an entire dna profile, as the law proscribes that. Given the lawyers arguing the case didn't go there, I think it must be a rabbit hole.

You think that because, why? I think they didn't go there because they are only allowed to address the issues that the court allows them to address, and they have limited time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did anyone notice that there were actual geneticists that urged the court to go the other way on this because even the current level of DNA testing used by police actually delves into areas that are not pertinent to law enforcement? They actually point out that one of the indicators used also points to Down syndrome.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...riefs-v2/12-207_resp_amcu_gs.authcheckdam.pdf

Feel free to keep telling me I don't understand that DNA is no different than fingerprints.

 

[bendog]

Once again, fingerprints are not DNA.

I see no need to balance the government's desire to solve crimes with the rights of innocent people. It would be a lot easier if the government could lock down an entire city every time there is a murder and subject the entire population to mandatory interrogation using truth serum. I don't think anyone would see that as an acceptable level of balance. I also see no need for them to be able to ask me where I was at the time of said murder. The only real concern here is the rights of individuals not to be harassed by the government, even if a crime was committed.

Argument recap: Does crime-solving trump privacy? : SCOTUSblog

I'm no DNA expert, but frankly the opposition to the law did not press this argument of the state using the sample to produce an entire dna profile, as the law proscribes that. Given the lawyers arguing the case didn't go there, I think it must be a rabbit hole.

You think that because, why? I think they didn't go there because they are only allowed to address the issues that the court allows them to address, and they have limited time.

I think that for two reasons. First four extremely smart and well staffed/prepped justices
wanted to overturn the law, and chose not to go there but instead focus on the issue of whether the mere fact that a person is suspected of a totally unrelated crime can be compelled to give a sample. To go down the rabbit hole, I'd have to believe the four justices "missed" an persuasive issue.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, King just didn't raise the issue in his brief. If his own attorneys didn't make an issue of the State seizing King's entire gnome, it wasn't an issue.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...review/briefs-v2/12-207_resp.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Argument recap: Does crime-solving trump privacy? : SCOTUSblog

I'm no DNA expert, but frankly the opposition to the law did not press this argument of the state using the sample to produce an entire dna profile, as the law proscribes that. Given the lawyers arguing the case didn't go there, I think it must be a rabbit hole.

You think that because, why? I think they didn't go there because they are only allowed to address the issues that the court allows them to address, and they have limited time.

I think that for two reasons. First four extremely smart and well staffed/prepped justices
wanted to overturn the law, and chose not to go there but instead focus on the issue of whether the mere fact that a person is suspected of a totally unrelated crime can be compelled to give a sample. To go down the rabbit hole, I'd have to believe the four justices "missed" an persuasive issue.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, King just didn't raise the issue in his brief. If his own attorneys didn't make an issue of the State seizing King's entire gnome, it wasn't an issue.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...review/briefs-v2/12-207_resp.authcheckdam.pdf

Read the amicus briefs, and Scalia's dissent. The issue was raised, just not at oral arguments. They only have 45 minutes to argue their points, and most of that is spent answering questions.

 

[Synthaholic]

You might want to read the story again. They said it can be done subsequent to any arrest. That is just Maryland's policy.

That is correct. Any arrest. Not just "serious felonies", as martybegan erroneously stated.

In Maryland its only for violent felonies, and the Maryland law is what was ruled on.

Does SCOTUS ruling only apply to Maryland? No.

Does SCOTUS ruling limit it to violent felonies? No.

 

[Synthaholic]

The old "stopped clock" rule peeks its ugly head up.

I actually find myself agreeing with Justice Scalia.

When you're right, you're right.

As opposed to being Right.

 

[Political Junky]

Why would anyone object unless they have something to hide?

 

[Synthaholic]

The last person I ever expect to see against a search is Scalia.

???

An odd thing to post.

Scalia is a constitutionalist. He supports the Constitution in virtually every ruling.

Generally there are 5 justices who side with the Constitution, and 4 who oppose it. This was a bit odd - but then with an arrest the case for 4th amendment protection is questionable - when fingerprints were challenged, arrest was ruled a defacto warrant.

There is nothing strange about it. Scalia thinks the constitution allows the government to regulate what people do in private.

Didn't he write the majority opinion on cops no longer needing a warrant to knock down your front door?