06-04-2013, 12:24 PM
|
|
Dee Tee Stables
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,942
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
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? |