Can police take a DNA sample from you after you've been arrested, but haven't yet been tried? The Supreme Court will hear arguments today.
Posted 02.26.2013 at 10:50 am
4 Comments
The Supreme Court is hearing a DNA rights case today
Photo by Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case today about whether police may sample the DNA of people who have been arrested, but haven't been convicted of a crime.
Advocates for DNA testing say that it helps solve cold cases and that it's not much different from fingerprinting and many other procedures imposed upon people who are, after all, presumed innocent—even after they've been arrested, but haven't undergone trial.
Opponents call the DNA testing an invasion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides at 10 AM Eastern today. Interested in following along? The SCOTUSblog will liveblog the event.
The case that sparked the debate is fascinating. (We used Associated Press and NPR coverage for the following summary. Both offer great background, if you want to read more.)
Ten years ago, a man broke into the home of a 53-year-old woman in Salisbury, Md., and robbed her and raped her while holding a gun to her head. Police never solved the case, at least not until 2009, when some Maryland police officers arrested Alonzo King on felony assault charges. Following state law, the police swabbed the inside of King's cheek for DNA and submitted the swab to a federal database. That's when they found a match to the 2003 rape case.
King was convicted and was supposed to serve life in prison for the crime. But then the Maryland Court of Appeals threw out the sentence. King pleaded guilty to misdemeanor, not felony, assault, and Maryland law says police may take DNA samples only in cases of felonies. The Maryland court said performing a DNA test on King based only on his arrest counted as a "warrantless, suspicionless search."
The case now at the Supreme Court is Maryland v. King. The court is expected to make a decision before the summer, the AP reported.
4 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2013: American Energy Independence
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Technology
- Defense Distributed's Cody Wilson On Being Told To Remove 3-D Printed Gun Plans: "We Win"
- Thieves Stole $45 Million From ATMs Because The U.S. Uses Absurd 40-Year-Old Technology
- A California State Senator Is Trying To Outlaw 3-D Printed Guns
- 2013 Invention Awards: Family Flier
- Autonomous X-47B Jet Fighter Makes Historic First Launch From An Aircraft Carrier
- U.S. Navy Spends $37 Billion On A Ship That Barely Works
- Time-Lapse GIFs Show Earth Transforming Over 25 Years
- How To Turn An AK-47 Into A Soup Ladle
- How The World's First 3-D Printed Gun Works
- Iran Unveils Absurd New Stealth Drone
Most Emailed
Technology
- Russia's 'Space Ark' Returns All Of Its Lizards And Half Its Mice Safely To Earth
- Google Maps Helps People Find Families They Lost Decades Ago
- Norwegian Geologists Begin Drone-Guided Quest For Oil
- Another Big Milestone For The X-47B: Its First Touch And Go Landing
- South Pole Lab Detects Elusive Deep-Space Neutrinos For The First Time
- Yahoo! Officially Acquires Tumblr For $1.1 Billion
- Mars Rover Opportunity Travels Farther Than A NASA Vehicle Has Ever Traveled On Another Planet
- 7 Reasons Why 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Is A Beginner's Guide To Star Trek [Spoiler Alert]
- America's Road To Energy Independence, Part 1
- Video: MIT's Cheetah Robot Trots, Then Gallops
Most Viewed
Technology
- Russia's 'Space Ark' Returns All Of Its Lizards And Half Its Mice Safely To Earth
- Google Maps Helps People Find Families They Lost Decades Ago
- Norwegian Geologists Begin Drone-Guided Quest For Oil
- Another Big Milestone For The X-47B: Its First Touch And Go Landing
- South Pole Lab Detects Elusive Deep-Space Neutrinos For The First Time
- Yahoo! Officially Acquires Tumblr For $1.1 Billion
- Mars Rover Opportunity Travels Farther Than A NASA Vehicle Has Ever Traveled On Another Planet
- 7 Reasons Why 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Is A Beginner's Guide To Star Trek [Spoiler Alert]
- America's Road To Energy Independence, Part 1
- Video: MIT's Cheetah Robot Trots, Then Gallops
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
If there is that rather inconvenient law, I don't know why this is up to the supremes -- probably why I'm not a lawyer.
Not that I agree with the law, but it would seem to apply.
This isn't about finding DNA evidence for the crime at hand - that could be done with a simple warrent.
This isn't about closing cases, since you can swab convicted felons until their cheeks wear out.
This is about Law Enforcenment "fishing" for something by arresting people who they suspect are responsible for a crime they do not yet have enough evidence for in hopes of snagging them on something else to use to hold them while they build a case on the current offense.
As such, it does little to nothing to the rights of your non-criminal citizen, but it does move towards an increase in government's ability to track you. The real key would be that such a DNA check could not be held as a record - if it comes up clean, it should be instantly destroyed (good luck getting government no to illegally keep up - but that makes it harder for it to be used against you).
Personally, I hope the Court opposes it, because getting swabbed is more expensive and longer to result than being fingerprinted - and I would hate the extra wait (I've been FPed twice, once for a government job once for my CCW permit and both still took a month for response).
"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"
The 4th amendment seems pretty clear on this issue to me.
Its worse fishing then even that. With current DNA tech you can find information on family, even distant family. Your long lost brother could be arrested, and his DNA used to probe every place you've been. ..and just because DNA was left in an area doesn't mean something illegal happenned. It can however be made to circumstantially look pretty bad, and in a jury system thats sometimes worse for the defendant then real logical proof.