Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DNA is a powerful tool in fighting crimes, and resolving those crimes which were committed a long time ago, so I am ok with this. I do not think it is unreasonable.
I am ok with it too. As the majority said:
"The Act serves a well-established, legitimate government interest: the need of law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify persons and possessions taken into custody. “[P]robable cause provides legal justification for arresting a[suspect], and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest,” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 113– 114; and the “validity of the search of a person incident to a lawfularrest” is settled, United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224. Individual suspicion is not necessary. The “routine administrative procedure[s] at a police station house incident to booking and jailing thesuspect” have different origins and different constitutional justifications than, say, the search of a place not incident to arrest, Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640, 643, which depends on the “fair probabilitythat contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particularplace,” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 238. And when probable causeexists to remove an individual from the normal channels of societyand hold him in legal custody, DNA identification plays a critical rolein serving those interests."
One of the consequences of electing liberals, is that you get more and more judges willing to violate the Constitution's most fundamental purpose: To make goverrnment leave law-abiding people alone.
Sad that you have lie and bash liberals when it was the liberal justices that opposed this ruling.
One of the consequences of electing conservatives, is that you get more and more judges willing to violate the Constitution.
DNA is a powerful tool in fighting crimes, and resolving those crimes which were committed a long time ago, so I am ok with this. I do not think it is unreasonable.
Have you ever sided against the government?? I don't like Alex Jones, but I agree more with him than with you.
I agree with Kennedy, a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting, which is not unreasonable search. I don't believe a cotton swab is any more intrusive than a fingerprint.
Elections have consequences. One of the consequences of electing liberals, is that you get more and more judges willing to violate the Constitution's most fundamental purpose: To make goverrnment leave law-abiding people alone.
Most of the opposition came from the liberal side, so your argument makes no sense whatsoever
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
