SCOTUS rules DNA can be gathered when arrested, no different than fingerprints

[MDM4AU 337]

Just now reading this...I have to agree with the SCOTUS. Am I missing something? What say you?

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2116453

[autigeremt 6,970]

I agree as long as it's not abused. Good luck with that. lol

[AUDub 11,426]

Fingerprints are an apt comparison. If they're not off limits, then your DNA shouldn't be either. I'm a little surprised at Scalia's dissent.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Fingerprints are an apt comparison. If they're not off limits, then your DNA shouldn't be either. I'm a little surprised at Scalia's dissent.

I think the route with which you get the DNA has been the issue. Technology has come a long way with DNA testing, which leads me to agree with the decision.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Absolutely agree with this decision!! DNA tech has come a long way, autigeremt, and it is a valuable tool at catching offenders, especially the violent predators and offenders.

[AUGradinTX 0]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

[AUDub 11,426]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

From a law enforcement perspective it's just another unique identifier.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I agree with it on the principle that it is limited to IDing a suspect and not for harassment or otherwise.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

Wow. Me, you and Scalia agree.

[autigeremt 6,970]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

Wow. Me, you and Scalia agree.

A swabbing of the mouth isn't invasive...but I see your point. Slippery slope.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

Wow. Me, you and Scalia agree.

A swabbing of the mouth isn't invasive...but I see your point. Slippery slope.

Knowing your genetic code is.

[autigeremt 6,970]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

Wow. Me, you and Scalia agree.

A swabbing of the mouth isn't invasive...but I see your point. Slippery slope.

Knowing your genetic code is.

Like I stated....I see your point.

[telling tiger 156]

While it is probably well intentioned, DNA samples have been sitting in police evidence storage for decades, several cases, particularly involving rape, have had the statute of limitations expire while in possession of evidence not examined and matched. What they have now cannot be managed. This allows for collection, but that already collected is often mismanaged and/or not even examined and compared. A few cases in Texas came to light that fit this description, this past week. Again.

[cptau 169]

The other ID methods are biometric, measurements of a living person (finger prints, voice print, blood type. DNA can be used as a biometric when it is merely used for ID or comparison to an unknown DNA sample.

The US military also takes DNA for identification purposes. Basically it help prevents future unknown soliders. Once a person leaves the military he can request that the sample be destroyed. Otherwise it is kept for 50 years.

http://www.afmes.mil/index.cfm?pageid=afdil.afrssir.overview

In the DNA case they are not just taking a measurement, they are taking part of you, your DNA sample and keeping it. The problem comes when it is used for more that ID purposes. I think the SOCTUS will be revisiting this area when it is abused.

[homersapien 11,812]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

Very good point.

I am undecided on this, but it is a perfect example of the "creep" of technology. There are big benefits and worrisome implications of this sort of thing.

[homersapien 11,812]

Fingerprints are an apt comparison. If they're not off limits, then your DNA shouldn't be either. I'm a little surprised at Scalia's dissent.

I am too.

[homersapien 11,812]

The other ID methods are biometric, measurements of a living person (finger prints, voice print, blood type. DNA can be used as a biometric when it is merely used for ID or comparison to an unknown DNA sample.

The US military also takes DNA for identification purposes. Basically it help prevents future unknown soliders. Once a person leaves the military he can request that the sample be destroyed. Otherwise it is kept for 50 years.

http://www.afmes.mil...frssir.overview

In the DNA case they are not just taking a measurement, they are taking part of you, your DNA sample and keeping it. The problem comes when it is used for more that ID purposes. I think the SOCTUS will be revisiting this area when it is abused.

This is another problematic "technical creep" issue.

We are fast approaching the ability for someone with a "smart phone" to walk by you and know exactly who you are in a few minutes by taking your photograph.

[Aufan59 101]

Why does the 4th amendment exist anymore? What a horrible decision.

Of course "conservatives" don't care as long as it doesn't affect the 2nd amendment.

[cptau 169]

The other ID methods are biometric, measurements of a living person (finger prints, voice print, blood type. DNA can be used as a biometric when it is merely used for ID or comparison to an unknown DNA sample.

The US military also takes DNA for identification purposes. Basically it help prevents future unknown soliders. Once a person leaves the military he can request that the sample be destroyed. Otherwise it is kept for 50 years.

http://www.afmes.mil...frssir.overview

In the DNA case they are not just taking a measurement, they are taking part of you, your DNA sample and keeping it. The problem comes when it is used for more that ID purposes. I think the SOCTUS will be revisiting this area when it is abused.

This is another problematic "technical creep" issue.

We are fast approaching the ability for someone with a "smart phone" to walk by you and know exactly who you are in a few minutes by taking your photograph.

Yep, which is why the SCOTUS will hear more cases in this area.....

[alexava 6,974]

Its hard for me to see a problem with this. As i have argued in favor of the Patriot Act, i feel that i have nothing to hide. So if it helps prosecute crimes or solve crimes im for it. I have no plan to commit crimes. What am i overlooking?

[autigeremt 6,970]

Its hard for me to see a problem with this. As i have argued in favor of the Patriot Act, i feel that i have nothing to hide. So if it helps prosecute crimes or solve crimes im for it. I have no plan to commit crimes. What am i overlooking?

It's the information gathering aspect of it that drives many to be very skeptical. As we have seen throughout history, when governments stockpile information about it's citizenry there's always a chance it could be used against them. in this day and age, I don't see what difference it makes and have a similar mindset about this issue as you do, but I can understand being cynical about it.

[AUGradinTX 0]

With my fingerprints, you can only learn my identity. Take a blood or other body fluid sample and you can learn anything you want about me. They will have my entire genetic make-up. I feel this is far more intrusive than them learning what is in my vehicle; which they need a warrant to search.

If someone is suspected of committing murder or rape or whatever, the police can get a warrant. There is no reason for my DNA to become property of any police department unless they can prove to a judge that there is a good reason for it.

Wow. Me, you and Scalia agree.

It happens

[AUGradinTX 0]

Its hard for me to see a problem with this. As i have argued in favor of the Patriot Act, i feel that i have nothing to hide. So if it helps prosecute crimes or solve crimes im for it. I have no plan to commit crimes. What am i overlooking?

I don't have anything to hide, either. If I felt there was adequate reason for law enforcement to suspect me of a crime in which they needed a DNA sample to rule me out, I wouldn't have a problem supplying it. If it was taken, I should also have the right to request and confirm its destruction afterwards. Being held down and having your DNA confiscated without your permission and without you knowing why is scary to me.

Someone with your DNA would know more about you than you do.

[alexava 6,974]

I dont think im that interesting.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I dont think im that interesting.

Hah!

Me either. But, like we are now seeing with the patriot act, as well as local law enforcement tracking people by their cell phones, they always promise not to abuse power. They lie.