• 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

Uh, the article headline was "police can collect DNA from arrestees....." So as I was saying, yeah people who are arrested should be able to have their DNA swabbed just like they are fingerprinted and photographed.
Sorry, should have said without warrant. Currently mail, email...even blood samples require warrants.

I just am astounded that a so called libertarian favors warrantless searches.
 
i agree. i'd probably support it if it were post-conviction, but anyone can be arrested for anything. it's a warrantless search.

What's the point of taking a DNA sample after someone is convicted?

Would you argue the same point about finger prints?
 
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.

In those cases they are using abandonment laws to get around the fourth amendment. We should no more tolerate such behavior than we should tolerate this ruling.

I don't see how people can see nothing wrong with the government tricking people into giving them their property. It's crazy to me.
 
Well, it is a complete dissembling of protections of privacy, without arrest the govt can collect the most private part of an individual.

And I say, "good." *shrug*

Where can I volunteer mine?
 
I really don't see why they couldn't. Are they allowed to keep fingerprints of people who've been arrested and later had the charges dropped? If they are, the same kind of framework would also be admisible here.

My point is, I don't know if they can, or can't; not familiar with what the law allows them to do.
 
And I say, "good." *shrug*

Where can I volunteer mine?

I really don't understand your position. You seem to be only interested in helping the state, but the constitution is not about helping the state, but the people.
 
Sorry, should have said without warrant. Currently mail, email...even blood samples require warrants.

I just am astounded that a so called libertarian favors warrantless searches.

I don't consider plucking a piece of hair or swabbing a tongue a warrentless search. Its not different then taking fingerprints imho.

I lean libertarian, doesn't mean I submit to ideology for every little detail along the way.
 
I really don't understand your position. You seem to be only interested in helping the state, but the constitution is not about helping the state, but the people.

I am interested in getting criminals off the street. I was completely unaware that was not in the best interests of "the people."
 
Well, it is a complete dissembling of protections of privacy, without arrest the govt can collect the most private part of an individual.

You do realize that the ruling pertains to people who have already been arrested. Right?
 
I don't consider plucking a piece of hair or swabbing a tongue a warrentless search. Its not different then taking fingerprints imho.

I lean libertarian, doesn't mean I submit to ideology for every little detail along the way.
"The Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion"

It flies in the face of understood 4th Amendment protections.

I'm with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and (gasp!) Scalia on this one.
 
I am interested in getting criminals off the street. I was completely unaware that was not in the best interests of "the people."

Yes, I expected that argument since that was pretty much the same crappy logic used in the opinion while admitting what they were doing was wrong. The DNA of people is their property, so the government requires a warrant to get that information, and I'm sorry but I'm more interested in the rights of people, than helping the government prosecute crimes.
 
Yes, I expected that argument since that was pretty much the same crappy logic used in the opinion while admitting what they were doing was wrong. The DNA of people is their property, so the government requires a warrant to get that information and I'm sorry, but I'm more interested in the rights of people, than helping the government prosecute people.

You could make the same argument about fingerprints, couldn't you?
 
You do realize that the ruling pertains to people who have already been arrested. Right?
You do realize I corrected myself already....oh..no, you have not.

Do you realize this is why I rarely respond to you?
 
What's the point of taking a DNA sample after someone is convicted?

Would you argue the same point about finger prints?

the point is that obtaining DNA is a search, and now it's a search which doesn't require a warrant.

it's not entirely analogous to fingerprints. DNA contains much more private data than a fingerprint.
 
I'm not seeing a similar outrage over that practice...

Who said I'm not outraged about it? It has however been around a long time and it's hard to get people to fight against things that have been established for a great deal of time.
 
the point is that obtaining DNA is a search, and now it's a search which doesn't require a warrant.

it's not entirely analogous to fingerprints. DNA contains much more private data than a fingerprint.

I'll ask you the same question as another poster, What sinister things do you think will be done with the information?
 
Who said I'm not outraged about it? It has however been around a long time and it's hard to get people to fight against things that have been established for a great deal of time.

I would argue there is no difference given the reliability of DNA evidence in proving one's guilt or innocence. In fact DNA is much better in those matters...
 
I'll ask you the same question as another poster, What sinister things do you think will be done with the information?

Why is an answer that question needed? They are barred from such actions not due to the harm of the act, but due to the nature of the act.
 
the point is that obtaining DNA is a search, and now it's a search which doesn't require a warrant.

it's not entirely analogous to fingerprints. DNA contains much more private data than a fingerprint.

Like what?
 
Why is an answer that question needed? They are barred from such actions not due to the harm of the act, but due to the nature of the act.

I'm not following your reply...
 
I'll ask you the same question as another poster, What sinister things do you think will be done with the information?

i've stated some of my concerns upthread. however, let me ask you this : what if it isn't used for anything nefarious? it's still a warrantless search. it sets a dangerous precedent.
 
Back
Top Bottom