:rolleyes:

The other problem with the decision is that the 5 concurring justices say that it's okay because the intent with DNA was to make a positive identification, while Scalia and the three women on the court say that the positive ID was already established, so there was no reason for DNA testing. Clearly, the cops were trying to link him to other crimes which he not accused of, which was not what the case was about and currently falls under unreasonable search and seizure. It's tough from a gut standpoint, since the guy likely did commit this earlier rape, but it's bad law if you believe in individual freedom and the 4th Amendment.

I can't find Scalia's full dissent, but according to comments on a site talking about it, he basically said, well then, let's be honest about what this is for and take DNA swabs from every American citizen and keep them on file. Because that's what this is about; having a database to link people to crimes.

Uh yeah... no.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-207_d18e.pdf

dissent begins on page 33.

Madison’s draft of what became the Fourth Amendment answered these charges by providing that the “rights of the people to be secured in their persons . . . from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause . . . or not particularly describing the places to be searched.” 1 Annals of Cong. 434–435 (1789). As ratified, the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause forbids a warrant to “issue” except “upon probable cause,” and requires that it be “particula[r]” (which is to say, individualized) to “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” And we have held that, even when a warrant is not constitutionally necessary, the Fourth Amendment’s general prohibition of “unreasonable” searches imports the same requirementof individualized suspicion. See Chandler v. Miller, 520
U. S. 305, 308 (1997).

So while the Court is correct to note (ante, at 8–9) thatthere are instances in which we have permitted searches without individualized suspicion, “[i]n none of these cases. . . did we indicate approval of a [search] whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminalwrongdoing.” Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32, 38 (2000). That limitation is crucial.

This was not a 'suspicion less law enforcement search'. The guy was arrested for a felony, not pulled over randomly, or pulled out of his house.

Should a finger print match for bank robbery on a DUI arrestee be thrown out should he plead guilty to a lessor charge of driving too fast for conditions?

fingerprints are for i.d., not to search for other crimes to charge an arrestee with.
king, otoh, had his dna entered not into the id'd dna, but the unsolved crime dna pool. thus, how could it be used to identify him, by matching him to unknown providers????
the majority ruled that dna was used for 'identity' purposes, scalia's dissent rips that argument to shreds. what did you think of scalia's dissent, dell?

But the DNA taken was used to link him to a crime for which he was not a suspect. And it was the only thing linking him to the crime. As Scalia points out, then why not just take mandatory DNA swipes from people applying for driver's licenses, or entering public school, or flying on a plane? Clearly the information is being gathered to solve cold cases, not identify someone accused of a specific crime. As he also said, DNA takes so long to process that it's useless as an ID technique for someone in custody.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/op...s-made-easier/

I hate to break this to you, but your hypothetical happens all the time in the real world. It's called a plea bargain, I believe.

exactly. and they have always ruled against this type of search in the past. but now it's ok?

Finger print matches are and have been used for matching a crime to an unknown suspect since the FBI organized the data base. To me this is just an advance in technology and should ultimately get a bunch of scum off the streets and bring justice to many families.

The FBI's IAFIS not only identifies the prints submitted but can be used as a data base to match unknown prints taken from a crime to prints on file and come up with an identification. My prints are in IAFIS, not because of any crime but because of my job. So are everyone's from stockbrokers to video poker licensees.

Unlike Scalia I think the DNA was most certainly used for identity purposes, just as finger prints are.

then explain why, like he asked, they ran the dna thru the unsolved crime dna database, not the known criminal dna database? he was checked specifically to look for crimes he wasn't arrested for, charged with, etc. it is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. it's a stretch, just like obamacare 'fines' are a tax.

and my fingerprints are in there as well, for past employment.

prints for those not charged, or found innocent, are supposed to be expunged from the fingerprint database. i am not sure when they match prints-if it's at arrest, or after conviction. it's never been run thru the scotus either.

I suspect like IAFIS when they run a DNA profile thru the system it's cross checked against everything.

Would it have been OK to take his DNA sample, put it in the data base and then re-run the DNA taken from the rape against those on file? Chicken and egg sort of argument. When I consider all the crimes, just in Chicago, where DNA evidence was obtained being able to be matched against future arrestees I have great hope a lot of criminals involved in a lot of crimes will no longer be looking for prey. At least not outside of prison. Now if Illinois could put convicted murderers/rapists away for anywhere near what their sentences dictate we could see progress.

i suspect you need to read scalia's dissent.

another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.

why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.

As you know, I disagree with the DNA ruling, but I imagine it falls under what the SC considers "invasive." I guess they feel a cheek swab is not invasive, while a blood draw is.

i don't know that it was brought up. the majority only looked at dna collection as another tool to identify, but that's not what it was used for as scalia pointed out.
so, if it's really to obtain evidence, then it should fall under the same evidence aquirement rule as blood draw imo. whether a swab in the mouth, or a needle in the vein, it's invasive, isn't it?

Do you need a warrant to finger-print?

OK we could do a spit in the cup or a brushing of the hair to make it less invasive. It's an advance in criminal-science nothing more and nothing less. A far more accurate way of making an identification than finger prints.