maryland vs king

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/police-now-col...192600381.html

Rather than serving as a tool to verify someone's identity, they argue that it's really a backdoor to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches." Police had no reason to suspect King had been involved in that rape, yet they used his arrest and DNA to charge him for an unrelated crime.


The case did not break on the usual ideological lines. In a withering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by three liberals on the bench, said it "taxes the credulity of the credulous" to suggest DNA testing is really about determining someone's identity:


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. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime. [SCOTUSBlog]

The court did not rule on specific limits for conducting pre-conviction sampling, which is another major point of contention. The court said it can only be done in the case of "serious" crimes. Yet that term is subjective, a point Scalia lambasted while arguing that the majority had "disguise[d] the vast (and scary) scope of its holding by promising a limitation it cannot deliver."

"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," he said.

[Danzig]

also, isn't fingerprinting done as an identification tool? dna most definitely is not.

[rpncaine]

Why wouldn't having someone's DNA be a HIPPA violation? You can't use fingerprints to look for specific gene anamolies you know. Potentialy you could clone someone from their DNA too.

[dellinger63]

Look at the bright side. How many jobs will this ruling create?


My view on the ruling, 'if you can't do the time don't do the crime' and with a rapist as the poster boy. Enjoy your time away Alonzo. I'm sure you'll have plenty of guys waiting on you.

And from now on instead of this ruling being about Alonzo let's make it about the poor 53-year old woman he raped and robbed who now can enjoy some sense of justice instead of worrying about him coming back because he got off on a technicality.

[Danzig]

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief in the case, added that expanded testing could lead to even more problematic privacy issues, like an arrestee's DNA being used as a tool to probe family members. ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro blasted the ruling for creating a "gaping new exception" to reasonable searches, saying it ran counter to the long-held belief that the Constitution provided for searches only in cases of "individualized suspicion."


yeah, you're right dell. no big deal....just the fourth amendment getting chipped away at.
i'm sure it will only ever affect bad guys. just like drones will only kill bad guys, and only the guilty go to jail.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, you're right dell. no big deal....just the fourth amendment getting chipped away at.
i'm sure it will only ever affect bad guys. just like drones will only kill bad guys, and only the guilty go to jail.

Get pulled over in Wisconsin and refuse a breathalyzer you get taken to the nearest hospital for a forcible blood draw though DNA is not tested. A reason to get pulled over in some towns is driving after midnight. Guess I may be a bit numb to the POTUS ruling but what's good enough for a suspected drunk driver is good enough for a suspected rapist.

So what should be done in your opinion? Let the rapist go, damn the 53 year-old victim so no one will wrongly go to jail in the future?

BTW Chicago and other IL towns have had a ban on handguns, even in one's own home yet not a peep about how the 2nd Amendment wasn't just chipped away but abolished.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Get pulled over in Wisconsin and refuse a breathalyzer you get taken to the nearest hospital for a forcible blood draw though DNA is not tested. A reason to get pulled over in some towns is driving after midnight. Guess I may be a bit numb to the POTUS ruling but what's good enough for a suspected drunk driver is good enough for a suspected rapist.

So what should be done in your opinion? Let the rapist go, damn the 53 year-old victim so no one will wrongly go to jail in the future?

BTW Chicago and other IL towns have had a ban on handguns, even in one's own home yet not a peep about how the 2nd Amendment wasn't just chipped away but abolished.

scotus just ruled against warrantless blood draws.

i don't think dna should be collected until after conviction. and as for chicago and others with gun bans, there hasn't been a peep?
scotus threw out washinton dc's handgun ban as unconstitutional, and the nra immediately filed suit against chicagos law.
the lower court ruling overturning his rape conviction should not have been overturned imo. do i find that palatable? no. would it have been correct constitutionally? yes.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

So what should be done in your opinion? Let the rapist go, damn the 53 year-old victim so no one will wrongly go to jail in the future?

Justice Scalia actually addresses your very question in his dissent:

"Solving crimes is a noble objective,” he concluded, “but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail.”

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/06...r-cheek-swabs/