maryland vs king

[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.