Supremes Legalize DNA Swabs

PrintSmith wrote: And I would object to such a use for the database, but IIRC, such a use was already precluded in the empowering statute. What the Supreme Court ruled is that it is not an unreasonable search to obtain DNA from someone who had been arrested after probable cause for their detentions had been satisfied which was to be used in a database to identify a single individual.

If it came to light that that database was being opened up to researchers for other purposes, then I would agree with you that it should not be allowed and that it would be an invasion of privacy to use the database for that purpose.

Do you NOT see the VERY wide gaping hole in the first bolded.....? The second BOLDED is virtually assured (legally)...ACLU believes
the potential for abuse is HIGH.

Not under the ruling issued today by the Supreme Court it isn't. The court ruled very narrowly on the ability to obtain the DNA for the same purpose that fingerprints and photographs are obtained. The uses you fear were specifically prohibited under the statute that was being challenged, which would mean that the statute was violated if the DNA was used for anything other than a unique identifier of a single individual. Which is a whole different can of worms than the one the Supreme Court issued a ruling on.

SCALIA DISAGREES with your assessment......and he JOINED the female constituents who see it as abuse of the 4th.....

Scalia disagreed that ObamaCare was constitutional as well. And while I happen to agree with him with regards to ObamaCare, one man's opinion only matters when that opinion happens to tip the scales one way over the other.

As I said, if the statute was being challenged on the grounds that the DNA was being used for something other than to accurately identify a single individual, I would agree with you, and the minority, that the privacy of individuals was being violated. But you have to wait for that violation to occur before a challenge to the statue can be brought on the grounds that the DNA database is being used for purposes prohibited by the statute.

We will agree to DISAGREE.....the demise of the 4th is being witnessed....it is death by a thousand little pecks.....(envision a bird
tearing at it's meal one small piece at a time)...... :VeryScared:

A person who has been arrested, with probable cause to support that arrest, as a suspect who has committed a serious crime, which is what we are talking about here, has always been subjected to having his person searched without a warrant home. When you are seized, which is what an arrest is, you may be searched and the results of that search used to identify you. This is nothing new. The police have always gone through your pockets to look for an official photo id when they arrest you. They have required you to submit to the taking of your fingerprints and a photograph of your person when you are arrested. These are all searches that occur each and every day without the necessity of a warrant. DNA is being used to establish identification of the person arrested. Burn off your fingerprints, visit a plastic surgeon and you can still be identified the next time you are arrested by comparing the DNA. The DNA can also be examined to see if you have left it behind at any crime scenes, just like fingerprints and surveillance photos can be. This is nothing new, this is nothing earth shattering or Constitution shattering for that matter.

Using the database for something other than identification of an individual is another matter entirely. And if, or perhaps I should say when, the government actually uses the database for something other than they would use the fingerprint database or a mug shot, then, and only then, is there a problem that needs to be addressed. Had the authorities opened up that database for use by others for purposes not consistent with identification of an individual, I remain confident that another verdict would have been reached.