High court authorizes routine DNA collection

[Spoonman]

Do they destroy fingerprint and mugshots if you are not convicted?

You are in the system, keep the evidence

shouldn't they?

If you were arrested and not convicted of previous rapes, I prefer that your name still remain in the system

and don't forget all those marchers on wall street who are now on record. we need to keep track of these people who are excercising their constitutional rights.

 

[Synthaholic]

if the government really wanted your DNA they could get it from your garbage. This is also not just random DNA taking, but for arrest for serious felonies.

Maybe they should move the point where the sample is taken from arrest to arraignment (so a person has been in front of a judge, i.e. due process) but a DNA profile test is no different than a photograph or a fingerprint, and those are allowed upon arrest.

They are only allowed to do this with serious felonies?

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.

 

[Synthaholic]

The five judges who were in the majority:

Chief Justice Roberts - Dubya appointee
Justice Alito - Dubya apppointee
Justice Thomas - Bush, Sr. appointee
Justice Breyer - Clinton appointee
Justice Kennedy - Reagan appointee

In the minority:

Justice Sotomayor - Bammie appointee
Justice Kagan - Bammie appointee
Justice Ginsburg - Clinton appointee
Justice Scalia - Reagan appointee

Now, that's just odd.

 

[Circe]

Scenerio:

Joe-Bob rapes Jane.
Joe-Bobs DNA pulled from Jane.
Joe-Bobs DNA is not on file.
Joe-Bob gets away.

Scenerio:

Everyones DNA sequence put into massive database upon birth

Joe-Bob rapes Jane
Joe-Bobs DNA pulled from Jane and identified.
Jo-Bob caught.

And hooray!! Technology at its best!!!

I love modern technology. What a time we live in.

 

[Synthaholic]

Isn't this just another form of fingerprinting?

Yes, because they can use fingerprints to figure out who all your relatives are.

One would like to believe that this was pointed out to The Supremes while they were studying this, but nowadays, who knows?

 

[Spoonman]

Scenerio:

Joe-Bob rapes Jane.
Joe-Bobs DNA pulled from Jane.
Joe-Bobs DNA is not on file.
Joe-Bob gets away.

Scenerio:

Everyones DNA sequence put into massive database upon birth

Joe-Bob rapes Jane
Joe-Bobs DNA pulled from Jane and identified.
Jo-Bob caught.

And hooray!! Technology at its best!!!

I love modern technology. What a time we live in.

cool, you can be the guinea pig for a chip planted into your temple that tracks every move and though you make

 

[Synthaholic]

If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.

So much for our 4th Amendment protections.

Read more:PeoplePC - News

You can blame the wingnut SCOTUS majority.

I guess that makes Scalia a leftwing moonbat now.

Of the prevailing side, were the majority RW or LW appointments?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can blame the wingnut SCOTUS majority.

I guess that makes Scalia a leftwing moonbat now.

Of the prevailing side, were the majority RW or LW appointments?

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

 

[Synthaholic]

I guess that makes Scalia a leftwing moonbat now.

Of the prevailing side, were the majority RW or LW appointments?

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

I'm interested in reading his dissent.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Law enforcement is broadening DNA while corporate America is broadening fingerprinting: Universal Studios Orlando, and the Disney properties now fingerprint everyone entering their park. They claim that it's to guard against, say, a known pedophile roaming their parks, but that's bullshit.

I refuse to go to any event or attraction that insists on fingerprinting me.

I'd love to see them try that with my uncle: after shooting revolvers for 40 years and wrenching on cars, trucks, and heavy equipment for 30, he basically doesn't have fingerprints anymore!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do they destroy fingerprint and mugshots if you are not convicted?

You are in the system, keep the evidence

shouldn't they?

If you were arrested and not convicted of previous rapes, I prefer that your name still remain in the system

Of course you do...you're a GOOD little fascist!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The five judges who were in the majority:

Chief Justice Roberts - Dubya appointee
Justice Alito - Dubya apppointee
Justice Thomas - Bush, Sr. appointee
Justice Breyer - Clinton appointee
Justice Kennedy - Reagan appointee

In the minority:

Justice Sotomayor - Bammie appointee
Justice Kagan - Bammie appointee
Justice Ginsburg - Clinton appointee
Justice Scalia - Reagan appointee

Now, that's just odd.

You know what they say about broken clocks…

On occasion Scalia can make sense:

Employment Division v. Smith

And Scalia is correct in his dissent concerning this case as well.

 

[Circe]

Law enforcement is broadening DNA while corporate America is broadening fingerprinting: Universal Studios Orlando, and the Disney properties now fingerprint everyone entering their park. They claim that it's to guard against, say, a known pedophile roaming their parks, but that's bullshit.

I refuse to go to any event or attraction that insists on fingerprinting me.

I find this difficult to believe. Can you cite a reference? I would think they would get a lot of customer push-back on that!!

Still, it's a good point: fingerprinting IS spreading, though it may soon be obsolete given retinal scanning and DNA cataloging. I had a job at an Army post with a contractor for years and one day they required we all get fingerprinted. No idea why this bright idea occurred to them, but it was post-9/11 and things got crazy.

I was FURIOUS!! I felt treated like a criminal. Well, I was being treated like a criminal, in case I was one, I guess.

However, now I think getting good IDs on people is a good idea. Whether it's the profile/full-face police photos after arrest, fingerprints, DNA, CCTV, whatever ---- the whole point is to identify people correctly and for sure! Photos are not as good as fingerprints are not as good as retinal scans are not as good as DNA -- but all these methods have only one point: to identify a person for sure.

So let's do it right and best! If we want to identify people, let's do it the best way possible. Currently that's DNA for slow and complete and retinal scans for fast but incomplete.

When DNA catalogs are very quickly accessed we'll see Disneyland take a swab from everybody's mouth at the gate, right? [:-0

 

[Politico]

Someone needs a little judical 101. Courts don't authorize something.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody on the Board who is hiding a crime that can be unmasked with DNA and a data bank, be very, very polite to the police.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.

So much for our 4th Amendment protections.

Read more:PeoplePC - News

Not sure where I stand on this. Justice Scalia gave it a scathing opinion in dissent.
I have read more stories about people being acquitted or exonerated of crimes they did not commit because DNA evidence was collected after the fact.
Just don't know. I guess we'll have to see how this works out.
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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.

So much for our 4th Amendment protections.

Read more:PeoplePC - News

Not sure where I stand on this. Justice Scalia gave it a scathing opinion in dissent.
I have read more stories about people being acquitted or exonerated of crimes they did not commit because DNA evidence was collected after the fact.
Just don't know. I guess we'll have to see how this works out.
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.

Damn, you are stupid.

The right to remain silent applies all the time, you can invoke if the police ask you if you saw the sunrise. Any attorney would tell you that you should never talk to the police, even if you are innocent and are telling the absolute truth.

 

[martybegan]

They are only allowed to do this with serious felonies?

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.

 

[martybegan]

If it worked that way I could give you a Hot Wheels and you could use it to drive to work.

Not quite getting where you are going with this. Do we allow fingerprints on arrest? Yes. It is for purposes of ID, and of relating evidence found AT a crime scene to the person comitting the crime. the DNA evidence is ALSO left at the crime scene, what you are again doing is comparing it to the accused in question.

If DNA is no different than fingerprints was does Maryland law specifically require police not to process it until after they have arraigned someone? Fingerprints are routinely compared to local, state, and national databases in order to verify the identity of the person who is arrested, DNA is not.

Your argument doesn't work, which is why my comparison to Hot Wheels makes just as much sense as your comparison to fingerprints.

Maybe because it costs more to do a DNA profile than to just take fingerprints? Also since the law requires no processing until arraignment, then due process has been met, as the person has been before a judge prior to the tests being run.

 

[Spoonman]

If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.

So much for our 4th Amendment protections.

Read more:PeoplePC - News

Not sure where I stand on this. Justice Scalia gave it a scathing opinion in dissent.
I have read more stories about people being acquitted or exonerated of crimes they did not commit because DNA evidence was collected after the fact.
Just don't know. I guess we'll have to see how this works out.
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.

but in the case of being aquitted you have the right to give your dna, not forced to give it.