• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
91,524
Reaction score
89,863
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?

I have no problem with it. I think people's DNA should be taken at birth.
 
Without cause / warrant means we have no privacy rights.
 
I support the Court decision and oppose Maggie's proposal. :lamo
 
I have no problem with it. I think people's DNA should be taken at birth.


a couple things to think about :

1. as tech improves, it will become more feasible to test for predisposition to illnesses. given our current private, for profit insurance system, there would be a major incentive to gain access to that data.

2. if i want to commit a serious crime, it would be exceptionally difficult for me to leave your fingerprints at the scene to cover my tracks. however, it would be incredibly easy for me to leave your DNA there. it's only a matter of time until something like this actually happens.

is there an upside to having a DNA database? sure; it will help to solve a lot of crimes. i'd just feel a whole lot more comfortable with it if it required a conviction or at least a warrant.
 
I think a warrent should be required.
 
I think the court made the right decision. DNA has helped police solve crime for years and needs to be something law enforcement can get as easily as possible.
 
I'm not in the US, but this strikes me as having the potential to abrogate your constitution's defense against self-incrimination. I could understand if it applied to those who were convicted in a court of some crime, as part of their sentence, but how many people in the course of any day are arrested and let go without charges? How many people are rounded up in a protest, to disband a crowd, and then let go? Are these people all going to be swabbed and tested just in case you might strike gold and catch someone?
 
I'm not in the US, but this strikes me as having the potential to abrogate your constitution's defense against self-incrimination. I could understand if it applied to those who were convicted in a court of some crime, as part of their sentence, but how many people in the course of any day are arrested and let go without charges? How many people are rounded up in a protest, to disband a crowd, and then let go? Are these people all going to be swabbed and tested just in case you might strike gold and catch someone?

Given this decision, probably.
 
how many people in the course of any day are arrested and let go without charges? How many people are rounded up in a protest, to disband a crowd, and then let go?
If I'm reading the decision correctly, it's limited to felony arrests. So unless your hypothetical protestor assaults a cop or shatters a shop window, they won't get swabbed.
 
If I'm reading the decision correctly, it's limited to felony arrests. So unless your hypothetical protestor assaults a cop or shatters a shop window, they won't get swabbed.

The original law was limited to just certain felony arrests. That is why this went to court. He was arrested on a felony charge and swabbed, he then pled the charge down to a lesser crime and the court said his DNA could not be used for other cases even though it implicated him in an unsolved rape.
 
I think a warrent should be required.
The police already have pretty good access to your DNA.

They can go through your trash to find something with your hair or saliva on it. Similarly, they can hand you a cup of water during an interrogation, and get your DNA off the cup. Or, in one famous case, Seattle PD tricked a suspect into mailing them a letter that he sealed with his saliva. In these cases, you are abandoning property or an object that happens to have your DNA on it.

Sounds to me like the SCOTUS is streamlining the process. Plus, for those who object to the ruling, it is still possible to pass a law which forbids state police from collecting DNA after an arrest without a warrant.
 
What an incredibly stupid and frustrating decision. It's already legal to take DNA from those who are actually convicted after their arrest. The ONLY people this impacts are those who are arrested, but are not charged and are later released. I.E. those cleared of any wrongdoing. I can't see why you'd support this decision and not want the database to cover the entire population.
 
What an incredibly stupid and frustrating decision. It's already legal to take DNA from those who are actually convicted after their arrest. The ONLY people this impacts are those who are arrested, but are not charged and are later released. I.E. those cleared of any wrongdoing. I can't see why you'd support this decision and not want the database to cover the entire population.

I can see them taking the swab, running checks on open cases then destroying the data if nothing comes up. But to just take it because you are charged seems a bit harsh. It's not like there is never a case of someone being wrongly charge for something.
 
I can see them taking the swab, running checks on open cases then destroying the data if nothing comes up. But to just take it because you are charged seems a bit harsh. It's not like there is never a case of someone being wrongly charge for something.

Unless the law requires that the swab can only be used in furtherance of the case in which the individual was arrested, there seems to me no requirement for the police not to store the results in a database and use them in future or other cases.

What happened to probable cause being required for the police to get a warrant on the suspicion that a person was connected to a crime? In this case, the result is that your DNA will provide a presumption of guilt in all cases until such time as the data clears you of any or all crimes in perpetuity.

What forces the police to destroy the DNA swab evidence/results after the individual is released or not charged or not convicted of a crime?
 
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?

This is a violation of 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights.Swabbing for DNA is a search and it is basically forcing someone to testify against themselves. An arrest doesn't equal guilt.You are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court of law.Innocent people should not have their constitutional rights violated without a warrant.
 
It's interesting how the court split.
 
It's interesting how the court split.

It is interesting that Alito and Breyer appear to be on opposite sides of where they usually would be. That's not a bad thing, in and of itself, but the decision is bad, in my view.

Comparing DNA to finger prints and mug shots taken upon arrest is a real broadening of police powers - finger prints and mug shots are usually used only to verify the person arrested is who he/she claims to be, not for purposes of solving a crime by themselves.
 
I can see them taking the swab, running checks on open cases then destroying the data if nothing comes up. But to just take it because you are charged seems a bit harsh. It's not like there is never a case of someone being wrongly charge for something.
There was a story a year or two ago that said 30-40% of the population will have been arrested by the time they're 23.

That's not counting traffic citations. Most people don't realize that they're technically arrested when they're pulled over for something like running a light or speeding. It's a temporary arrest, but an arrest nonetheless. You are being detained and are not free to go until you sign the ticket (which acts like a bond) - if you don't sign the ticket, you go to jail.

Taking that into account, I'd imagine that the arrest rate is well over 90%. Some police departments fingerprint at traffic stops. It'd be much easier to swab.
 
I'm not in the US, but this strikes me as having the potential to abrogate your constitution's defense against self-incrimination. I could understand if it applied to those who were convicted in a court of some crime, as part of their sentence, but how many people in the course of any day are arrested and let go without charges? How many people are rounded up in a protest, to disband a crowd, and then let go? Are these people all going to be swabbed and tested just in case you might strike gold and catch someone?

So would fingerprints. But, like fingerprints, DNA is physical evidence and is open game when someone is arrested.
 
There's two sides of the fence on this thing, the way I see it. I understand the "rights" side and self incrimination, etc...

However, I must admit...if a crime was committed against me or a member of my family...and they had managed to gather some DNA evidence that belonged to the perpetrator, and that said individual was brought to justice because they found a match after arresting the bastard, then I would be pretty okay with it. ;)
 
So would fingerprints. But, like fingerprints, DNA is physical evidence and is open game when someone is arrested.

It's only accessible, under a warrant, in the furtherance of a specific investigation - not to tag a person for future and/or other crimes committed or to be committed in the future.

Everyone who values personal privacy, innocence until proven guilty, protection against self-incrimination, etc. should be careful about making police work too easy.
 
What's the rule in Canada?
 
It's only accessible, under a warrant, in the furtherance of a specific investigation - not to tag a person for future and/or other crimes committed or to be committed in the future.

Everyone who values personal privacy, innocence until proven guilty, protection against self-incrimination, etc. should be careful about making police work too easy.

By that logic, fingerprints should only be accessible under a warrant. We can't have it both ways, is my point.
 
By that logic, fingerprints should only be accessible under a warrant. We can't have it both ways, is my point.

Agreed, but DNA carries a great deal more information than fingerprints.
 
Back
Top Bottom