U S Supreme Court Decides D N A Samples Can Be Taken From Arrestees

[webfact]

US Supreme Court decides DNA samples can be taken from arrestees

WASHINGTON: -- US Supreme Court judges believe that DNA identification represents an important advance in the techniques used by law enforcement to serve legitimate police concerns.

On Monday the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of a Maryland law allowing police officers to collect DNA samples from persons arrested for serious crimes, without first getting a warrant for that.

In that manner the Supreme Court has upheld a Maryland DNA statute connected to Alonzo Jay King Jr.’s conviction in a 2003 rape that was earlier reversed by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Alonzo Jay King Jr. was connected to the crime after a DNA sample was taken following an unrelated 2009 arrest for assault. Then the Maryland Court of Appeal agreed that the DNA sample had violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures.

The decision was taken amid serious disagreements between the justices.

Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the decision will lead to an increased use of DNA testing in violation of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches.

Full story: http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_06_04/US-Supreme-Court-decides-DNA-samples-can-be-taken-from-arrestees-6511/

The Washington Post, USA Today

-- THE VOICE OF RUSSIA 2013-06-04

[kblaze]

Can't make my mind up on this one.

Many states have a form of this practice already and I've read they will destroy the sample if the arrestee ends up being released. However, DNA is THE most personal part of a human. Nearly everything to know about a person can be gleaned from it. So the question is, even if this DNA-swabbing practice is limited/restricted in use and scope at the beginning....what is to stop it from being maliciously used in the future?

[Credo]

The difficulty is that the police can arrest nearly anyone for a serious crime and then take DNA and use it against the person, even if they wouldn't have arrested the person under normal circumstances.

[chiang mai]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

[Loptr]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

You ever hear of the 4th amendment?

It's not about innocence or guilt. It's about invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure, which has taken a major blow since 2001. The police can now search your cell phone without a warrant. They can cross-reference you call records, emails, texts, social media posts, personal relationships, employment records, etc all without a warrant these days. Hell, the Oregon legislature just passed a bill forbidding anyone smoking in a car that has other occupants. The knee-jerk progressives are just about complete in turning the US from a bastion of individuality and entrepreneurial spirit into a flock of sheep that nurse on the tit of the government. Makes me want to puke just thinking about it.

[chiang mai]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

You ever hear of the 4th amendment?

It's not about innocence or guilt. It's about invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure, which has taken a major blow since 2001. The police can now search your cell phone without a warrant. They can cross-reference you call records, emails, texts, social media posts, personal relationships, employment records, etc all without a warrant these days. Hell, the Oregon legislature just passed a bill forbidding anyone smoking in a car that has other occupants. The knee-jerk progressives are just about complete in turning the US from a bastion of individuality and entrepreneurial spirit into a flock of sheep that nurse on the tit of the government. Makes me want to puke just thinking about it.

Protesting about something that represents progress in terms of the accuracy of modern crime detection techniques , simply because a rule exists in a document written several hundred years ago, seems odd to me. I personally have no difficulty with the police having my DNA (really just an extention of the fingerprint system) and I have no problem is they want to do all the things you describe, this is because I have nothing to hide and surely all these powers can do nothing less than help prove my inocence so that I can get on with living my life.

[F430murci]

Yeah, it's the implications, the slippery slope and a great indication of what happens when a power hungry little man, GW, with a small mentality cuts deals with Christian right and Evangelics to appoint activist judge's willing to erode stare decisis of Roe v. Wade for votes in 2004 election. GW had promised to put one of theirs, Harriet Miers, on court even though she had zero experience and the Evangelicals carried him in 2004. Even Rublicans nixed her and were shocked by this selection.

Bush's appointments will be around for a while. Goodbye 4th and a lot changes in areas of personal feedoms. Afterall, Christian right knows how everyone should live, what they should do with their bodies and will save us from ourselves.

Edited June 4, 2013 by F430murci

[Ulysses G.]

Liberals have a much worse record with having activist judges than conservatives.

I am up in the air on this, but tend to thnk that DNA samples should not be taken unless someone is already convicted of a serious crime.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

Quote:

I am up in the air on this, but tend to thnk that DNA samples should not be taken unless someone is already convicted of a serious crime.

I tend to agree.

[lomatopo]

Surely innocent people have nothing to fear from this.

Surely you jest.

Crime Lab Scandal Leaves Mass. Legal System In Turmoil

by TOVIA SMITH

March 14, 2013 4:00 AM

A scandal in a Massachusetts crime lab continues to reverberate throughout the state's legal system. Several months ago, Annie Dookhan, a former chemist in a state crime lab, told police that she messed up big time. Dookhan now stands accused of falsifying test results in as many as 34,000 cases.

As a result, lawyers, prosecutors and judges used to operating in a world of "beyond a reasonable doubt" now have nothing but doubt.

Already, hundreds of convicts and defendants have been released because of the scandal. Now, the state's highest court may weigh in on how these cases should be handled.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scandal-reverberates-across-state

And in a separate case, still in Massachusetts:

Massachusetts crime lab scandal explodes

4 April 2013Rebecca Trager

The arrest of another forensic lab chemist has prosecutors scrambling to check drug cases she worked on

More than 300 convicted inmates have been released from Massachusetts state prisons in the US as a result of the September 2012 arrest and subsequent prosecution of Annie Dookhan, who worked in a Department of Public Health state laboratory and allegedly falsified evidence used in criminal cases. Now the scandal has grown with the prosecution of another Massachusetts state lab chemist for tampering with evidence and stealing drugs seized as evidence.

Sonja Farak, who worked at the Massachusetts State Crime Laboratory in Amherst, was charged with tampering with four drug samples stored at the lab on 1 April. In two of the cases, authorities allege that Farak mixed drug evidence samples with counterfeit drugs to hide her theft, and in the two other cases the samples could not be found. She was also charged with cocaine possession.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/04/us-massachusetts-forensic-lab-chemist-charged

Attorney general Martha Coakley said that Farak – who was originally arrested in January, just months after the Dookhan scandal broke – ‘violated the trust placed in her’.

[SteeleJoe]

Personally, I think it was pretty much inevitable, sooner or later...

have some ambiguity on this one too but, while I am NOT a "the government/the powers that be/whoever is out to get us" sort of guy - rather the opposite, really - I have to point out that people are viewing this only in the context of where we are now in terms of knowledge and what we can do with it.

You think it has potential for abuse now? As time goes by we will likely learn more and more about what can determined about people from DNA - quite possibly far more than just proof of identity or even appearance but maybe things like susceptibility to certain influences or character traits or psychological indicators or...that stuff on some kind of database...

Well, not hard to come up with some pretty scary conspiracy theories (or movie scripts).

[Baloo22]

I agree with this decision. Good work by the U.S. Supreme Court justices!

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority decision “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” I agree with him. I don't see a cheek swab as an overly invasive procedure and regard the use of DNA as a legitimate and needed tool in the public safety work of law enforcement and criminal prosecution.

[Baloo22]

Yeah, it's the implications, the slippery slope and a great indication of what happens when a power hungry little man, GW, with a small mentality cuts deals with Christian right and Evangelics to appoint activist judge's willing to erode stare decisis of Roe v. Wade for votes in 2004 election. GW had promised to put one of theirs, Harriet Miers, on court even though she had zero experience and the Evangelicals carried him in 2004. Even Rublicans nixed her and were shocked by this selection.

Bush's appointments will be around for a while. Goodbye 4th and a lot changes in areas of personal feedoms. Afterall, Christian right knows how everyone should live, what they should do with their bodies and will save us from ourselves.

More of: Blame Bush! Blame Bush! Blame Bush! And throw in the "Christian right and Evangelics" for extra kicks!

Sorry, your attempt to blame this on President Bush and Christians is ridiculous and way, way out in left field.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Justice Stephen G. Breyer, certainly no conservatives, were part of the majority is making this decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, the usual scary "boogeyman" for the far left, was one of the dissenting justices.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Baloo22

[JDGRUEN]

Personally, I consider that modern times have shown an increase in potential corruption in law enforcement. In short, I do not trust the police as I once did. And I certainly do not trust politically motivated prosecutors... It is not out of the realm of possibility that a crime scene specimen of blood, saliva or semen could be 'salted' with the tissue from a cheek swap. Yes the cells are different - but when broken down and the DNA released - just exactly where did the DNA come from? Innocent people do have to worry that they could become a convenient suspect.

[F430murci]

Yeah, it's the implications, the slippery slope and a great indication of what happens when a power hungry little man, GW, with a small mentality cuts deals with Christian right and Evangelics to appoint activist judge's willing to erode stare decisis of Roe v. Wade for votes in 2004 election. GW had promised to put one of theirs, Harriet Miers, on court even though she had zero experience and the Evangelicals carried him in 2004. Even Rublicans nixed her and were shocked by this selection.

Bush's appointments will be around for a while. Goodbye 4th and a lot changes in areas of personal feedoms. Afterall, Christian right knows how everyone should live, what they should do with their bodies and will save us from ourselves.

More of: Blame Bush! Blame Bush! Blame Bush! And throw in the "Christian right and Evangelics" for extra kicks!

Sorry, your attempt to blame this on President Bush and Christians is ridiculous and way, way out in left field.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Justice Stephen G. Breyer, certainly no conservatives, were part of the majority is making this decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, the usual scary "boogeyman" for the far left, was one of the dissenting justices.

Nothing left field about it. If offended, you do not appreciate the dynamics. The law is my life and I am very conservative on legal issues. I have to be as I defend (civil) large corporations and I also I clerked for a conservative State Supreme Court Justice.

Appointment of Justices is perhaps the biggest, most powerful decision a President can make as they quietly shape policies, our rights and the way we live. They are appointed for life and the youngens last a looonnnggg time.

Breyer is a centrist and a bit unpredictable. Kennedy is conservative, but shows brief moments of progressivism on dignity issues.

If Scalia joins the liberals and writes a scathing dissent on a 4th amendment protection issue, be concerned. We have been on a slipperly slope since 911 regarding privacy rights and 4th Amendment protections.

I have always liked Scalia. He is conservative, but he follows the Consitution and applies the law.

Unfortunately, policies go astray when law is shaped by personal values or belief systems as opposed to stare decisis and the Constitution.

Scalia's rare verbalization should resonate in all of us (provided you live in the US):

"It may be wise, as the court obviously believes, to make the Leviathan all-seeing, so that he may protect us all the better. But the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection. I dissent."

Edited June 4, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

The issue is not this case. This dude needs to get locked up, have his ass beat and perhaps casterated.

The problem is the slippery slope and ignoring stare decisis or prior 4th amendment decisions. Prior 4th Amendment decisions permit police to search arrested persons for weapons and for evidence relevant to the crime of arrest. DNA is being utilized to solve other crimes or cold cases.

Fingerprints are taken for processing and intake identification. DNA swabs are not being taken for processing or intake identification. Obtain consent or get a court order while dude is being held if he is suspected of other crimes.

Whether the logic offends or is your preference is of no consequence. Justices need to adhere to prior 4th Amendment cases and constitutional interpretations regardless as to whether they personally agree or disagree. Justices are not there to rewrite the Constutition to make it conform to their own particular belief system. Unfortunately, this is all too prevelant at the present time.

[lomatopo]

"But the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection. I dissent."

Gotta' love an 'Originalist'. Who needs "Amendments".

It seems like more people who've been wrongly convicted, and even might have received the death penalty - but have not yet been executed hopefully - have been acquitted based on subsequent DNA evidence, so in that sense DNA evidence is a good thing. My main issue, not so much with the gathering of DNA evidence - this is a complex and challenging issue - with DNA evidence is that in most jurors minds it is incontrovertible even though most of us don't necessarily understand the science, and that it is ridiculously easy to mix up samples.

[geriatrickid]

I find Justice Scalia's dissent an eye opener. It is something and is being called "historic"

This is one of the most conservative of the judges.

On the other hand, the guy that gets labeled a wishy washy liberal, Stephen Breyer voted with the majority.

Here is the judgement.

I suggest Scalia's dissent be read. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf

Edited June 5, 2013 by geriatrickid

[lomatopo]

^ Interesting read, although his final footnote is curious.

I don't think anyone really believes that DNA is required to identify people, but were it my daughter who was raped by Mr. King I might be relieved that his conviction will stand. Hopefully we don't subsequently discover some malfeasance was involved in the handling, analysis and matching of the DNA samples.

Snips from the majority....

“possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty,”

"for in fact this is the DNA region used with near certainty to identify a person."

[jellydog]

The slippery slope gets a little more slippery...

[kblaze]

Yeah, it's the implications, the slippery slope and a great indication of what happens when a power hungry little man, GW, with a small mentality cuts deals with Christian right and Evangelics to appoint activist judge's willing to erode stare decisis of Roe v. Wade for votes in 2004 election. GW had promised to put one of theirs, Harriet Miers, on court even though she had zero experience and the Evangelicals carried him in 2004. Even Rublicans nixed her and were shocked by this selection.

Bush's appointments will be around for a while. Goodbye 4th and a lot changes in areas of personal feedoms. Afterall, Christian right knows how everyone should live, what they should do with their bodies and will save us from ourselves.

Wow talk about taking a topic in a completely different direction...

[britinthai]

The difficulty is that the police can arrest nearly anyone for a serious crime and then take DNA and use it against the person, even if they wouldn't have arrested the person under normal circumstances.

And

[lomatopo]

The difficulty is that the police can arrest nearly anyone for a serious crime and then take DNA and use it against the person, even if they wouldn't have arrested the person under normal circumstances.

And

My sense is that the implication is that the authorities might not have enough proof for a judge to issue a search warrant allowing them to collect DNA evidence from a suspect. So, a quick traffic stop is set-up, then maybe an arrest for suspected DUI say or resisting arrest, then a booking then a quick poke in the mouth and voila, legally obtained evidence, that otherwise not been obtainable. Hence the reference to the slope getting 'slopier'.

[Mosha]

Last year on Discovery, about forensics in Australia. An elderly woman was badly beaten and killed, in her house which was in an isolated area. The only clue was an engorged leach on the carpet. The officer took a blood sample from the victim, and took the sample with the leach to the lab. Years later, police pulled a suspected drunk driver over. He failed the test, and a blood sample taken. The sample matched the sample from the leach, and when confronted with the evidence the killer confessed.

[skorchio]

I would resist this procedure with all my physical strength, even though I have nothing to hide.

[lomatopo]

Last year on Discovery, about forensics in Australia. An elderly woman was badly beaten and killed, in her house which was in an isolated area. The only clue was an engorged leach on the carpet. The officer took a blood sample from the victim, and took the sample with the leach to the lab. Years later, police pulled a suspected drunk driver over. He failed the test, and a blood sample taken. The sample matched the sample from the leach, and when confronted with the evidence the killer confessed.

Not sure if this is the same "leech" story, but in this one it doesn't seem like the elderly woman was killed? But the embellishment makes it sound way cooler.

Crime-fighting leech cracks Australian cold case

Leech was found at crime scene eight years ago

DNA from human blood extracted from the creature was added to database

Match was found during a routine cross-check of suspect in another case

October 20, 2009 --

DNA from blood in a leech found at a crime scene was used to convict a criminal in Australia. In what Australian officials are calling a first in their country -- and possibly in the world -- police used DNA extracted from a leech that bit Cannon eight years ago to convict him of robbing an elderly woman. "I haven't heard of it being done in Australia before. I am not aware of it being done elsewhere in the world," Pam Scott of Forensic Science Service of Tasmania told CNN affiliate ABC News.

Cannon and an accomplice broke into the rural home of a 71-year-old woman in Tasmania, Australia's southernmost state, in 2001. They tied her to a chair, poked her with sticks, and robbed her of $504 (AUS $550), authorities said. Arriving officers found little in the way of evidence, except for an engorged leech on the floor next to the chair. "None of the police who were there had any evidence of a leech bite on them and neither did the victim. So it was logical that perhaps it was related to one of the offenders and it was taken on that basis," Inspector Mick Johnston told ABC.

Samples of DNA taken from the leech were added to a database. The case languished until last year, when Cannon was picked up on a drug offense. Following routine, investigators cross-checked Cannon's DNA against a databank to see whether he was tied to other crimes. They found a match. "For the leech to latch onto the offender as he was probably traveling through the bush to get there, to drop off at the scene, to be found during the examination, and to extract the DNA sample from the blood in the leech -- you know, it's a fairly unique set of circumstances," Johnston said. Watch Johnston talk about leech case »

Cannon, 54, pleaded guilty to robbery on Monday. He will be sentenced Friday. His accomplice has not been caught.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/20/australia.crime.leech/

Edited June 5, 2013 by lomatopo

[chiang mai]

Last year on Discovery, about forensics in Australia. An elderly woman was badly beaten and killed, in her house which was in an isolated area. The only clue was an engorged leach on the carpet. The officer took a blood sample from the victim, and took the sample with the leach to the lab. Years later, police pulled a suspected drunk driver over. He failed the test, and a blood sample taken. The sample matched the sample from the leach, and when confronted with the evidence the killer confessed.

What happened to the leach?

More seriously, I've said earlier what I think on this subject but I guess you'd have to be an American to who was borne and raised with all the clauses of the Declaration of Independance in order to appreciate it's significance. Personally as a non-American but as one who has lived in the US for over fifteen years, I think that some of the clauses need bringing up to date, but that's just my opinion.

[Frank James]

Coming up next in the USA: collecting and storing DNA at birth. Collecting and storing DNA of anyone arrested anywhere for any offense. Compulsory universal National ID card, as in Thailand and many other countries. Welcome to the National Security State.

It's not the world we knew as lads, alas.

[Credo]

I trust that the Supreme Court has looked at the issue carefully, but I always get a little skeptical about giving the police too much power. If the evidence leads them in a certain direction, they can get a DNA sample based on probable cause.

It's a little like learning mathematics--it's not just the write answer that counts, but how you solved the problem.

Most, but not all, people who commit serious crimes, are repeat offenders, so their DNA should be available without a further erosion of rights.

But again, I have some confidence that the Supreme Court took this into consideration in their decision.

[transam]

I have noooooooooooo problem giving my DNA to anyone. Imagine how much easier it would be to sort crime out. I might go crackers in later life and DNA would help. Mind you I am crackers and in later life BUT so far am a good guy, well I think I am. .......................