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.
“Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court’s five-justice majority.
But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.
“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom. Court: Police Can Take DNA Swabs From Arrestees « CBS DC
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.
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.
Why would you object to being positively identified? Are you afraid of who you are or what you have done?
It would provide the information to support my alibi for a crime I did not commit. If I actually committed the crime than positive ID is just a win for the innocent and too damn bad for me.
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.
The facts counter your claim. The conservative justices voted for the majority on this case. The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.
Quote:
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
I oppose the DNA gathering, for persons simply arrested but not convicted. That was Scalia's objection, and probably the objection of the other 3 Justices who dissented.
Fingerprints, digital photo, DNA sample.
Once they get iris scans on file then they can start chipping people and get ID instantly without ever asking one question.
The ruling produced an unusual alignment, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a Democratic appointee, joining Kennedy and three other Republican-appointed members of the court in the majority. Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
Seems that it was mostly the Republican appointees that decided to allow this.
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.
