maryland vs king

[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.

[Danzig]

'McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.'

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

'McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.'

FYI From 1988-2010 the gun ban existed.

In true Chicago fashion handguns weren't banned but those not registered before 1982 were. At the same time Chicago stopped registering handguns making it in effect a handgun ban.

[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/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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/

Said the noble man with round-the-clock, armed protection.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Said the noble man with round-the-clock, armed protection.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Said the noble man with round-the-clock, armed protection.

Uh yeah... no.

[Danzig]

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

dissent begins on page 33.

[Danzig]

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).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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/

and he's right!!

some support some portions of the constitution, and rail against others. if it's sacred for those who support the 2nd, how can it not be regarding the fourth?


'I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.'

James Madison

[dellinger63]

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?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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?

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.

[Danzig]

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?

[dellinger63]

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.

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.

[GenuineRisk]

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.