• 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

I would say for violent criminals, yes... because it would provide a means for determining their involvement in any potential future cases. For petty crime? Probably not. We don't need people's DNA to solve petty crime.

Convicted criminals become wards of the state, but they still have rights. I don't think carte-blache DNA collection of all criminals is justifiable. The U.S. has a bloated justice system right now, with so many laws on the books, and the highest number of prisoners per capita. Conviction in of itself should not mean automatic DNA collection, unless authorities can prove that the DNA could help the justice process in the future.

My point in my previous posts is that we should assume the government is going to abuse power, because that's what governments do in their nature. Our Founding Fathers knew it, which is why the Bill of Rights is worded like it is. We have to err on the side of the rights and liberties of the individual, always.

The government shouldn't get "automatic" right to do anything. It should have to prove itself at every stage, and not prove itself to itself, but prove itself to the People.

What SCOTUS ruled was statist, plain and simple. It eliminated one more piece of discernment from the system. It has said that DNA collection is justifiable in all cases, without review. That is dangerous.
Good answer.

I'll add that stored DNA info has led to solving past unsolved cases as well. Plus, it has been helpful in exonerating the wrongfully convicted, which is a huge pet issue of mine.

Totally agree with your point about assuming government will abuse power. It's simple human nature, and is the primary reason I lean against the proposal.
 
Last edited:
i agree. i should point out, though, that this is for "serious" crimes, not traffic stops. either way, thanks for pointing out the fifth amendment issue; that one didn't occur to me.

It does say that, yes, but as I understand it "serious" is kind of vague and set up to be a moving target. As a committed slippery slope theorist I fear the continual weakening of what the bar will be for 'serious'.
 
Well then it's a good thing they cut it from the opposite side :)

Lol, but the point remains. To assume I care about finger prints and not male circumcision is wrong.
 
"Guidance" sounds too much like a warn and fuzzy euphemism when the kid is forced to go to school against their will.

The liberty of children is restricted in cases of guidance from their parents. Be that what they eat, how they dress, if they go to school, etc. That does not mean or imply that the parents can do whatever they want in the name of guidance.
 
You are just funny.
Really? You think it's easy to remove those hospital wrist bands while the infants are all kept is a nursery visible to many people?
 
It also tells the government everything about your biological makeup....
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Nor are they going to check a suspect's DNA for genetic predispositions for breast cancer.


The State's job is to prove guilt, not innocence. Proving innocence is your job if you're arrested.
The state is empowered to collect evidence, including unique identifiers like fingerprints. They can also legally use fingerprints to link you to other crimes.


"Anything you say and do can be used against you." There is no law requiring police to work for your benefit.
True, but not relevant. If you leave fingerprints on a murder weapon, you are not incriminating yourself when the police take your fingerprints.


Lawyers should be able to fight against the obtaining of DNA just like anything else. It's part of the defense process.
Apparently, not anymore. And again, in most cases the police have many legal methods to obtain your DNA.


If you want a suspect's DNA, get a subpoena or warrant. Their DNA is their personal property.
Not if it gets thrown in the trash. Anything you abandon becomes precisely that -- abandoned. As a court held in 2007: "No recognized privacy interest exists in voluntarily discarded saliva."


Yes it does... it protects people's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure of their personal property.
I'm not seeing this as "unreasonable search or seizure." If anything, it's all but routine now.

In fact, I'm seeing benefits to it. If the DNA doesn't match, the suspect is much more likely to be freed or cleared, in a much faster time frame, than under other circumstances -- such as being brow-beaten by a bunch of cops during an interrogation, and coughing up a false confession, only to have it overturned after 10 years in jail and multiple court proceedings.


It's easy to accuse anyone of a felony in this day and age. There are so many laws on the books.
It's not that easy, which is why it doesn't happen that often. E.g. a whopping 0.15% of Americans were arrested for violent crimes in 2009.
 
i agree. i should point out, though, that this is for "serious" crimes, not traffic stops. either way, thanks for pointing out the fifth amendment issue; that one didn't occur to me.

What do they consider a serious crime? Kind of open ended I would think. I don't trust the government to get it right. Too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak.
 
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Nor are they going to check a suspect's DNA for genetic predispositions for breast cancer.

I disagree. They can possibly use your DNA for many different things. Like I said I don't care as they already have mine. If they were to qualify what they mean by "serious crime" I would be more open to the idea.

Apparently, not anymore. And again, in most cases the police have many legal methods to obtain your DNA.

Then why do they have to do an end run around getting a warrant?

I'm not seeing this as "unreasonable search or seizure." If anything, it's all but routine now.

It sets a bad precedent in my humble opinion.

In fact, I'm seeing benefits to it. If the DNA doesn't match, the suspect is much more likely to be freed or cleared, in a much faster time frame, than under other circumstances -- such as being brow-beaten by a bunch of cops during an interrogation, and coughing up a false confession, only to have it overturned after 10 years in jail and multiple court proceedings.

This is pure fantasy. This is like TV cop stuff. It will not and does not work that way in the real world at all.

It's not that easy, which is why it doesn't happen that often. E.g. a whopping 0.15% of Americans were arrested for violent crimes in 2009.

That's 4,500,000 people. How many of them were black and Hispanic?
 
Last edited:
What do they consider a serious crime? Kind of open ended I would think. I don't trust the government to get it right. Too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak.

It's one of those issues where incrementalism really is a factor.
 
Really? You think it's easy to remove those hospital wrist bands while the infants are all kept is a nursery visible to many people?

The only thing the fingerprints are used for when they take them from newborns is that put in the fingerprint database. That is it and that is one reason why there is something wrong with it. It also exactly what is going to happen with DNA in the future to. All of sudden some random ass excuse will be made up about how the hospital has to take your kids DNA. I imagine it will deal with some sort of disease preventative crap.

If that is not the worst kind of deception out there I really don't know what is.
 
I disagree. They can possibly use your DNA for many different things.
The consequences seem pretty clear by now. They're going to use DNA to verify identities, solve cold cases and as evidence in current cases. They're not going to use it to test your paternity, or report possible medical conditions to your employer.


If they were to qualify what they mean by "serious crime" I would be more open to the idea.
For Maryland, it's violent crimes and burglaries.


Then why do they have to do an end run around getting a warrant?
DNA collection has, and still is, managed by statutes. Maryland expanded DNA collection to include arrests for serious crimes in 2009, and the case has been working its way through the courts since then.


This is pure fantasy. This is like TV cop stuff. It will not and does not work that way in the real world at all.
No, it's legal reality.

300 people to date have been exonerated because of DNA evidence. 18 were on death row. (DNA evidence proves innocence of 300th prisoner nationwide - Los Angeles Times).


That's 4,500,000 people. How many of them were black and Hispanic?
It's 450,000. I believe about half are black or Hispanic, could be more.

There is no doubt that's a lot of people. But it is a tiny percentage of the populace as a whole.
 
The only thing the fingerprints are used for when they take them from newborns is that put in the fingerprint database. That is it and that is one reason why there is something wrong with it. It also exactly what is going to happen with DNA in the future to. All of sudden some random ass excuse will be made up about how the hospital has to take your kids DNA. I imagine it will deal with some sort of disease preventative crap.

If that is not the worst kind of deception out there I really don't know what is.

And many parents are ok with that given the number of child abductions. If the parents are ok with it, and I was, then I don't see a problem. They offer fingerprinting at elementary schools here for the same reason.
 
And many parents are ok with that given the number of child abductions. If the parents are ok with it, and I was, then I don't see a problem. They offer fingerprinting at elementary schools here for the same reason.
Whether intentional or unintentional, I often wonder whether those child abduction fingerprint events actually serve to stir up hysteria and paranoia more so than offer any real help. Child abductions outside of family disputes, while they do happen, are actually pretty rare.
 
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?

How can you?

These SCOTUS idiots are idiots - they have no precedence or even basis to make this OPINIONATED ruling.

Their job isn't to rule on opinion - it's to rule on law.

The Fourth Amendment is quite clear, but those progressive punks don't care.

This is tyranny at it's finest considering the Fourth Amendment has been basically circumvented - which will only without question be used as precedent to completely destroy the Fourth Amendment, of course that will lead to precedent to destroy other amendments.... If you can kill one amendment with one stone then you can kill two with 2 stones.

IMO the Bill of Rights and the constitution in general is being held hostage by a bunch of radicals with partisan ideas.... Obama wants that tho - destruction of civil liberties.
 
How can you?

These SCOTUS idiots are idiots - they have no precedence or even basis to make this OPINIONATED ruling.

Their job isn't to rule on opinion - it's to rule on law.

The Fourth Amendment is quite clear, but those progressive punks don't care.

This is tyranny at it's finest considering the Fourth Amendment has been basically circumvented - which will only without question be used as precedent to completely destroy the Fourth Amendment, of course that will lead to precedent to destroy other amendments.... If you can kill one amendment with one stone then you can kill two with 2 stones.

IMO the Bill of Rights and the constitution in general is being held hostage by a bunch of radicals with partisan ideas.... Obama wants that tho - destruction of civil liberties.
I know you didn't intend it to be so, but this post was actually funny. You pulled out almost all the libertarian doom-and-gloom buzzwords.

:2mad:

:lol:
 
I know you didn't intend it to be so, but this post was actually funny. You pulled out almost all the libertarian doom-and-gloom buzzwords.

:2mad:

:lol:

I don't use "buzz words" I recycle history. You know - ideas that have already happened which you claim will never happen despite the same historical tactics being used?
 
Whether intentional or unintentional, I often wonder whether those child abduction fingerprint events actually serve to stir up hysteria and paranoia more so than offer any real help. Child abductions outside of family disputes, while they do happen, are actually pretty rare.

I have no idea but I sure wouldn't want to find out they are important the hard way.
 
I don't use "buzz words" I recycle history. You know - ideas that have already happened which you claim will never happen despite the same historical tactics being used?
Yes, of course. :allhail



I have no idea but I sure wouldn't want to find out they are important the hard way.
Oh, no doubt. It is possible that these things do more harm than good. In an overall sense. That's all I'm saying.
 
And many parents are ok with that given the number of child abductions. If the parents are ok with it, and I was, then I don't see a problem. They offer fingerprinting at elementary schools here for the same reason.

All that needs to be said is that it's not OK that people lose their rights on the day they are born and the government gains this information about this individual from that day forward. The parents have no right to give away that information, none. The hospital has no right to take it, and the government has no right to collect it. This is where the debate will go next and where they are going to do the same thing for DNA, and yes, it is wrong no matter if it helps solve crimes or not. In fact, it's completely immaterial if it helps solves crime. You do not violate someones rights in the chance it might help them in the future.

Would you like to have no say if the government has your fingerprints? Well, would you? Mine are not on record since back then they didn't do this, but now they do, and almost none of the children have a say. THAT IS WRONG and it does follow them for the rest of their lives.
 
Last edited:
All that needs to be said is that it's not OK that people lose their rights on the day they are born and the government gains this information about this individual from that day forward. The parents have no right to give away that information, none. The hospital has no right to take it, and the government has no right to collect it. This is where the debate will go next and where they are going to do the same thing for DNA, and yes, it is wrong no matter if it helps solve crimes or not. In fact, it's completely immaterial if it helps solves crime. You do not violate someones rights in the chance it might help them in the future.

Would you like to have no say if the government has your fingerprints? Well, would you? Mine are not on record since back then they didn't do this, but now they do, and almost none of the children have a say. THAT IS WRONG and it does follow them for the rest of their lives.

The parents definately have the right decide to have an infants fingerprints taken just like they have the right to approve an amputation to save a childs life or the right to have them vaccinated or any other decision. It's not like an infant can make those sort of decisions.
 
The parents definately have the right decide to have an infants fingerprints taken just like they have the right to approve an amputation to save a childs life or the right to have them vaccinated or any other decision. It's not like an infant can make those sort of decisions.

Did you just compare a life saving operation to giving fingerprints to the government? There is so much fail in that train of thought I don't even have words to describe it. Then you put out the absurd vaccination crap that is again a medical decision that has nothing to do with giving finger prints to the government. At no point did you even make a valid comparison in this entire post designed to compare one thing to another to convince me of the merit of your case.

No, the fingerprints is the property of the child and a part of their identity and body. They have a right to privacy a right to their body and such a right does encompass fingerprints. You can only argue towards acting on their body for maintenance and needed medical treatment.
 
Last edited:
These SCOTUS idiots are idiots....
Actually, they're among the top judges and legal scholars in the US.


they have no precedence or even basis to make this OPINIONATED ruling.
Have you actually read the ruling? I'm guessing "no," since both the majority and dissent do actually bother to cite relevant precedents.


The Fourth Amendment is quite clear, but those progressive punks don't care.
And where does it specify what qualifies as "unreasonable search and seizure?"


This is tyranny at it's finest considering the Fourth Amendment has been basically circumvented....
No, it hasn't.

There is always a tension between an individual's right to privacy and to be protected from unreasonable searches, and the needs of law enforcement to gather evidence. Collecting a DNA sample isn't much different than getting fingerprints -- except that it works better.

And no, having one decision not go your way is not viable evidence of a "slippery slope."

Nor does this have anything to do with Obama. In fact, not only did Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, they joined Scalia on the dissent -- not a common occurrence.
 
Actually, they're among the top judges and legal scholars in the US.



Have you actually read the ruling? I'm guessing "no," since both the majority and dissent do actually bother to cite relevant precedents.



And where does it specify what qualifies as "unreasonable search and seizure?"

It's unreasonable because the DNA is being used to solve a crime that the police did not have probable cause to arrest the man for. That's the crux of Scalia's argument. The DNA sample is not being used for identification purposes but to see if there are other crimes that can be pinned on the arrestee.

If the DNA was being used simply for identification, like fingerprints, it'd be a potentially different story. They aren't though. And the majority opinion, at least as far as I can see ignores that completely.

Haven't read this entire thread so if that point's been made already my apologies.
 
Did you just compare a life saving operation to giving fingerprints to the government?

No I pointed out that parents make all the decisions for an infant. If they choose to let the child be fingerprinted then that is their right. That is all.
 
No, the fingerprints is the property of the child and a part of their identity and body.

Then if they are the property of a person can I chage someone for cleaning up their property when they mess up my windows?
 
Back
Top Bottom