'modest encroachments'

[Danzig]

“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.”

how does swabbing for dna and running it thru the dna unsolved crime database not fit this description?
when they arrested king, did they suspect him of committing the crime from six years ago?
how is swabbing for dna of a person arrested, not convicted, but arrested, disimilar from searching thousands of phone records? other than quantity, there is no difference. when a person is arrested, he is under suspicion only for the crime for which he was arrested. unless he possesses evidence of other crimes, they have no basis for a search. and running his dna was most definitely a search.
searching phone records is a way to produce suspicion, not act on it. the act of using a phone makes one no more suspicious of committing a crime than being arrested for one thing makes one suspicious of any other crime that's been committed. also, arrest itself is zero proof of crime, one must still be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. he was not found guilty of a felony on the initial charge.
also, as scalia asked, what is a serious crime? who will define it? is speeding a serious crime? maybe, maybe not. who chooses?


and scalia 'spilled so much ink' on it because the majority opinion was mainly based on using dna as an identification tool, which he shows is not what happened here.

i get that king is a bad guy, i am concerned about the far-reaching affects of chipping away at our fourth amendment. this ruling does that. the patriot act being used as a way to search phone and emails is another. where does it end? and it won't be just bad guys who pay.

as a man famously said after being found completely innocent after getting his name dragged thru the mud after arrest, etc 'how do i get my reputation back?' the kings of this world aren't the only ones swept up in nets like this.

[dellinger63]

DNA is not just a form of identity, it is your identity. It only becomes evidence when it's associated with a crime. Similar to your drivers license being a form of ID unless say it was dropped at the scene of the crime.

King's 4th amendment rights were violated as much as a driver pulled over on a traffic stop being asked for ID and then run through NCIC.

[Danzig]

the traffic stop is done after probable cause, witnessed by the officer who pulls you over. the info is run to verify id.
and if used for identity, why was the dna run thru the unidentified unnamed database? how can it be used to prove identity if done that way?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the traffic stop is done after probable cause, witnessed by the officer who pulls you over. the info is run to verify id.
and if used for identity, why was the dna run thru the unidentified unnamed database? how can it be used to prove identity if done that way?

So a traffic stop is probable cause and waving a shotgun at a group of people is not?

DNA is in itself an identity and a swab is its drivers license. Just as a cop has a right to ask for a DL to find out whether there are any warrants/holds so does the jailer to check for warrants/holds.

And if the DNA data base was truly unidentified/unnamed how did it lead back to King? Somewhere his name was identified by the numbered sample despite Scalia's claims regarding the data base.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

So a traffic stop is probable cause and waving a shotgun at a group of people is not?

DNA is in itself an identity and a swab is its drivers license. Just as a cop has a right to ask for a DL to find out whether there are any warrants/holds so does the jailer to check for warrants/holds.

And if the DNA data base was truly unidentified/unnamed how did it lead back to King? Somewhere his name was identified by the numbered sample despite Scalia's claims regarding the data base.

he was arrested and anything regarding THAT CRIME is fair game.

the dna in the database matched his after they put it in the system. it didn't match by name, but by dna. if they haven't got a name, they number it.

and a cop can't ask for dl, name, anything unless he has a reasonable need to know, such as if he thinks a crime has been committed. he can't ask for that stuff just to then run a name and search for crimes. he must first suspect the crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlRDGUx-B8