maryland vs king

Danzig · #1 06-04-2013, 04:29 PM

i suspect you need to read scalia's dissent.

Danzig · #2 06-05-2013, 09:57 AM

another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.

why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.

GenuineRisk · #3 06-05-2013, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.

why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.

As you know, I disagree with the DNA ruling, but I imagine it falls under what the SC considers "invasive." I guess they feel a cheek swab is not invasive, while a blood draw is.

Danzig · #4 06-05-2013, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As you know, I disagree with the DNA ruling, but I imagine it falls under what the SC considers "invasive." I guess they feel a cheek swab is not invasive, while a blood draw is.

i don't know that it was brought up. the majority only looked at dna collection as another tool to identify, but that's not what it was used for as scalia pointed out.
so, if it's really to obtain evidence, then it should fall under the same evidence aquirement rule as blood draw imo. whether a swab in the mouth, or a needle in the vein, it's invasive, isn't it?

dellinger63 · #5 06-05-2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

whether a swab in the mouth, or a needle in the vein, it's invasive, isn't it?

OK we could do a spit in the cup or a brushing of the hair to make it less invasive. It's an advance in criminal-science nothing more and nothing less. A far more accurate way of making an identification than finger prints.

Danzig · #6 06-05-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

OK we could do a spit in the cup or a brushing of the hair to make it less invasive. It's an advance in criminal-science nothing more and nothing less. A far more accurate way of making an identification than finger prints.

still haven't read the dissent, have you?
the dna collection on king was NOT for id.

dellinger63 · #7 06-05-2013, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

still haven't read the dissent, have you?
the dna collection on king was NOT for id.

Ok I agree with you now. Let's let poor Alonso out immediately and be sure anyone who had DNA collected w/o a warrant whether it be a cigarette butt or a hair sample out as well. Shiat let's throw them all some money for violating their civil rights.

GenuineRisk · #8 06-05-2013, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, if it's really to obtain evidence, then it should fall under the same evidence aquirement rule as blood draw imo. whether a swab in the mouth, or a needle in the vein, it's invasive, isn't it?

Totally agree with you; I was just saying what I thought the court's reasoning was as to why warrants aren't necessary.

dellinger63 · #9 06-05-2013, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.

why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.

Do you need a warrant to finger-print?