Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
have you read the dissent?
again, have you read the dissent? if not, you're refusing to look into something that may sway your thinking. better not do that, right?
|
Needed a break from work and read the majority as well as Scalia’s minority opinion and contrary to your theory it did not sway my opinion. But here’s how I dissent Scalia’s dissent.
Scalia states, “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.”
I’d argue King was not searched for evidence. The evidence in this case was the DNA left at the scene of the rape. King was legally swabbed per the Maryland DNA Collection Act.
He goes on to say, ‘or to search a person “whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence,”’
I believe waving a shotgun at a group with many witnesses outside of those threatened meets the criteria of an offence described and supported by a preponderance of the evidence. King after asking for a ‘speedy trial by his peers’ as Scalia pointed out pled guilty much later but he left that fact out of his opinion. Seems the Judge is very time sensitive sometimes and not so much other times.
He then attempts to describe the differences between finger print and DNA data bases albeit with great bias. He points out an electronic finger print takes an average of 24 minutes yet neglects to point out it’s a relatively new technology and it wasn’t so long ago, finger prints were taken manually, on a card, and then sent to Quantico for a manual check against cards on file after the print was ‘pointed’. Many times a arrestee would bail out before his/her prints came back.
He does go into detail of the time needed to run a DNA sample thru CODIS. He then explains the two data bases of CODIS pointing out the one for arrestees/convicts bears no name only an identification number (that can lead to a name by back tracking the sample). The other is for unsolved crimes, obviously with no names attached.
He neglects to point out that finger prints, like DNA samples from arrestees and convicts aren’t filed by name but by FBI Number. Like the DNA sample number the FBI number can then be back tracked to find as Scalia stated, “detailed identification information, including “criminal histories; mug shots; scars and tattoo photos; physical characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color.” Without looking up the FBI number the identification can not be made. Similar to the way a DNA sample number would be looked up.
Lastly he points out “Latent prints” recovered from crime scenes are not systematically compared against the database of known fingerprints, since that requires further forensic work.”
If it didn’t require further forensic work to systematically check would it then be a violation of 4rth Amendment rights? If say the 24 minutes to process an electronic finger print is reduced to 24 seconds and a simultaneous search of the data base of latent prints taken from crimes is completed would fingerprinting then cross the threshold and become an illegal search for evidence?
Bottom line for me is the evidence in this case was the DNA obtained from the semen left at the rape, could have been a finger print or even a name on a deposit slip. The process of matching that DNA to the sample taken at the time of the arrest is akin to a name match made through a NCIS check after a traffic violation with a match to say again a deposit slip.
Lastly, if this has little to do with finger printing as an accepted form of identification why did Scalia spill so much ink on it, as he likes to put it?
I’ll wait for your dissent of my dissent one more time and I’m putting this one to bed. Just hope Alonso has something special planned for tonight and the poor woman who he raped enjoys hers. I’m out for some barbeque ribs and sweet corn so I know I’ll enjoy the rest of mine.