High court authorizes routine DNA collection

[Uncensored2008]

The last person I ever expect to see against a search is Scalia.

???

An odd thing to post.

Scalia is a constitutionalist. He supports the Constitution in virtually every ruling.

Generally there are 5 justices who side with the Constitution, and 4 who oppose it. This was a bit odd - but then with an arrest the case for 4th amendment protection is questionable - when fingerprints were challenged, arrest was ruled a defacto warrant.

 

[EriktheRed]

The old "stopped clock" rule peeks its ugly head up.

I actually find myself agreeing with Justice Scalia.

 

[Circe]

I was afraid they would strike that DNA collection and cataloging down.

But they didn't! It's the best thing to happen for law and order ------------ ever.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The old "stopped clock" rule peeks its ugly head up.

I actually find myself agreeing with Justice Scalia.

What if the accused is suspected of belonging to the Tea Party? I would assume you would forgo any due process and send them directly to forced labor camps...

 

[EriktheRed]

The old "stopped clock" rule peeks its ugly head up.

I actually find myself agreeing with Justice Scalia.

What if the accused is suspected of belonging to the Tea Party? I would assume you would forgo any due process and send them directly to forced labor camps...

Wow, what a jaggoff you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow, what a jaggoff you are.

Right, where would I ever get the idea that you leftists target the Tea Party?



{

Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included "Tea Party?"

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And it was your understanding -- was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?

A: That is correct.

Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?

A: Yes, it was.
}


Testimony: IRS Targeting Program Driven By Washington, Was Explicitly Political - Guy Benson

It's amusing to hear leftists pretend to support civil liberties.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you think your DNA is safe, think again. Now if you are arrested and processed by police for any reason now they may take your DNA as routinely as they do fingerprints without a warrant.

So much for our 4th Amendment protections.

Read more:PeoplePC - News

Not sure where I stand on this. Justice Scalia gave it a scathing opinion in dissent.
I have read more stories about people being acquitted or exonerated of crimes they did not commit because DNA evidence was collected after the fact.
Just don't know. I guess we'll have to see how this works out.
As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime.

but in the case of being aquitted you have the right to give your dna, not forced to give it.

As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime...
'It's not that difficult to acquire a DNA sample. Heck if a person enters a room and a hair with follicle falls onto a desk or table at which they sat, DNA can be collected from that.
Or the perspiration off a chair handle or arm. A coffee cup, Soda can, water bottle. Simple stuff.
The SCOTUS dealt with the notion of whether or not a person is under arrest in police custody must submit to the harvesting of a DNA sample.
I am not sure if there is a distinction between the finger printing of a suspect and a saliva sample.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Scalia sided with the libs on this one and voted with the minority. It's hard to understand how the majority Court could determine that a person who isn't even convicted of a crime can have DNA, forcibly if necessary, taken and used against him/her in past and future crimes.

Law enforcement performs examinations on suspects all the time.
For example. A suspect in a shooting would have his hands swabbed for gunpowder residue.
The is not protected under the 4th amendment 'unreasonable searches and seizures' clause.
I believe this is where SCOTUS went with the upholding decision. The question here was "is the taking of a criminal suspect's DNA through a simple saliva sample an "unreasonable search or seizure"...it appears the answer of the majority was "no".

 

[Uncensored2008]

As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime...
'It's not that difficult to acquire a DNA sample. Heck if a person enters a room and a hair with follicle falls onto a desk or table at which they sat, DNA can be collected from that.
Or the perspiration off a chair handle or arm. A coffee cup, Soda can, water bottle. Simple stuff.
The SCOTUS dealt with the notion of whether or not a person is under arrest in police custody must submit to the harvesting of a DNA sample.
I am not sure if there is a distinction between the finger printing of a suspect and a saliva sample.

There is no time that you can be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of arrest status. Per the 5th amendment, you absolutely have the right to remain silent if you are not under arrest.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime...
'It's not that difficult to acquire a DNA sample. Heck if a person enters a room and a hair with follicle falls onto a desk or table at which they sat, DNA can be collected from that.
Or the perspiration off a chair handle or arm. A coffee cup, Soda can, water bottle. Simple stuff.
The SCOTUS dealt with the notion of whether or not a person is under arrest in police custody must submit to the harvesting of a DNA sample.
I am not sure if there is a distinction between the finger printing of a suspect and a saliva sample.

There is no time that you can be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of arrest status. Per the 5th amendment, you absolutely have the right to remain silent if you are not under arrest.

That is true but not accurate.
For example, per legal precedent we do not have the right to remain silent when upon a traffic stop a police officer asks routine basic questions, such as, do you know why I stopped you?...Or, are you the owner of this vehicle? What is your name and address?
Or if taken to a police station for an interview as a person of interest or witness.
Maranda only applies to those placed under arrest. It is at that point the Maranda Warning is to be given. Not before.
Police are given wide latitude to compel statements once one has refused or declines their Maranda Rights and offers to answer voluntarily.
If a person is not under arrest, police can use deceptive methods, such as offering liquid refreshment with the idea of collecting DNA.
Or if in a search of a crime victim's premises, hair, blood, saliva and other bodily fluids are collected without a warrant. No warrant is required. DNA samples may be collected from these substances. I think the SCOTUS ruled in the case that DNA is equivalent to a finger print.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime...
'It's not that difficult to acquire a DNA sample. Heck if a person enters a room and a hair with follicle falls onto a desk or table at which they sat, DNA can be collected from that.
Or the perspiration off a chair handle or arm. A coffee cup, Soda can, water bottle. Simple stuff.
The SCOTUS dealt with the notion of whether or not a person is under arrest in police custody must submit to the harvesting of a DNA sample.
I am not sure if there is a distinction between the finger printing of a suspect and a saliva sample.

There is no time that you can be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of arrest status. Per the 5th amendment, you absolutely have the right to remain silent if you are not under arrest.

Oh, the 5th does not apply here. The question deals with the 4th Amendment's "unreasonable searches and seizures" clause.
The 5th protects us from acting as "a witness against himself".Better stated "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"..That applies to trial testimony. I don;t thimk the 5th applies to a routine traffic stop or other minor offense..Also from the 5th..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "..Is it your belief that DNA( saliva) is 'property'?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You might want to read the story again. They said it can be done subsequent to any arrest. That is just Maryland's policy.

That is correct. Any arrest. Not just "serious felonies", as martybegan erroneously stated.

In Maryland its only for violent felonies, and the Maryland law is what was ruled on.

The rest of the country is going to use the ruling to write their own laws, idiot. You can keep pointing to the law in Maryland all you want, what we are going to end up with is no more going to resemble the law there than the current DUI checkpoints resemble the ones that were originally set up in Michigan before the Sitz ruling.

In other words, stop showing how ignorant and stupid you are and look at the real world slippery slope the court just set in motion.

 

[Meister]

That is correct. Any arrest. Not just "serious felonies", as martybegan erroneously stated.

In Maryland its only for violent felonies, and the Maryland law is what was ruled on.

The rest of the country is going to use the ruling to write their own laws, idiot. You can keep pointing to the law in Maryland all you want, what we are going to end up with is no more going to resemble the law there than the current DUI checkpoints resemble the ones that were originally set up in Michigan before the Sitz ruling.

In other words, stop showing how ignorant and stupid you are and look at the real world slippery slope the court just set in motion.

Yup, they started this over in the UK several years ago. It has grown into a debacle to the point that their healthcare has privy to the DNA law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not quite getting where you are going with this. Do we allow fingerprints on arrest? Yes. It is for purposes of ID, and of relating evidence found AT a crime scene to the person comitting the crime. the DNA evidence is ALSO left at the crime scene, what you are again doing is comparing it to the accused in question.

If DNA is no different than fingerprints was does Maryland law specifically require police not to process it until after they have arraigned someone? Fingerprints are routinely compared to local, state, and national databases in order to verify the identity of the person who is arrested, DNA is not.

Your argument doesn't work, which is why my comparison to Hot Wheels makes just as much sense as your comparison to fingerprints.

Maybe because it costs more to do a DNA profile than to just take fingerprints? Also since the law requires no processing until arraignment, then due process has been met, as the person has been before a judge prior to the tests being run.

Do you actually believe that? The state argued that the only reason they had for taking the DNA was for identification, then wrote a law that made it illegal to identify anyone with it unless they were formally charged with something. The way the law is written it would be possible to arrest someone for murder, get in front of a judge and admit they didn't have enough evidence to charge him, and still process the DNA even though he is no longer in custody.

By the way, it used to cost thousands dollars and be prohibitively expensive in man hours to compare fingerprints to a national database The cost has gone down considerably over time, I see no reason to think that will not happen with DNA. After all, it used to cost a few thousand for the simplest DNA paternity check, now you can get a kit at WalMart.

Pointing to the cost as a reason not to worry about something is even dumber than trusting the government not to abuse its power.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is true but not accurate.
For example, per legal precedent we do not have the right to remain silent when upon a traffic stop a police officer asks routine basic questions, such as, do you know why I stopped you?...Or, are you the owner of this vehicle? What is your name and address?

Of course you do.

Doing so is not in your best interest, as an infraction would lead to detention and perhaps arrest. But you have every right to remain silent and will never be charged for doing so.

Or if taken to a police station for an interview as a person of interest or witness.
Maranda only applies to those placed under arrest. It is at that point the Maranda Warning is to be given. Not before.

Miranda, which has been overturned, merely requires that the police inform you of your rights. It has no bearing on actual rights, which are confirmed in the Constitution. I don't need to be told by a cop that I have a right to free speech in order to have that right - nor do I need a cop to tell me that I have 5th amendment rights to have those.

You have zero obligation to talk to the police at any time.

Police are given wide latitude to compel statements once one has refused or declines their Maranda Rights and offers to answer voluntarily.

Miranda informs, does not confer, rights. The only question is what will or will not be admitted. Cops using a sap or telephone book to beat a confession out of a suspect will still have difficulty getting the confession admitted should they get caught.

If a person is not under arrest, police can use deceptive methods, such as offering liquid refreshment with the idea of collecting DNA.

Which is why a person should NEVER talk to the police. The police are a hostile entity with an agenda detrimental to the well being of the citizenry.

Or if in a search of a crime victim's premises, hair, blood, saliva and other bodily fluids are collected without a warrant. No warrant is required. DNA samples may be collected from these substances. I think the SCOTUS ruled in the case that DNA is equivalent to a finger print.

I keep a notice on my gun safe that permission is NOT granted for search and that entry into the residence is an act of trespass, citing California Criminal Code.

The cops are just another criminal street gang.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The last person I ever expect to see against a search is Scalia.

???

An odd thing to post.

Scalia is a constitutionalist. He supports the Constitution in virtually every ruling.

Generally there are 5 justices who side with the Constitution, and 4 who oppose it. This was a bit odd - but then with an arrest the case for 4th amendment protection is questionable - when fingerprints were challenged, arrest was ruled a defacto warrant.

There is nothing strange about it. Scalia thinks the constitution allows the government to regulate what people do in private.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, the 5th does not apply here. The question deals with the 4th Amendment's "unreasonable searches and seizures" clause.
The 5th protects us from acting as "a witness against himself".Better stated "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"..That applies to trial testimony. I don;t thimk the 5th applies to a routine traffic stop or other minor offense..Also from the 5th..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "..Is it your belief that DNA( saliva) is 'property'?

DNA is a 4th amendment issue.

The right to remain silent is the 5th, to wit;

{The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant. Harris v. N.Y., 401 US 222,225 (1971). Outside the context of detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of police at all; and if judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to comply. Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him, can a person be compelled to answer over an assertion of this privilege. Kastigar v. US, 406 US 441, 462 (1972)}

Right to silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not sure where I stand on this. Justice Scalia gave it a scathing opinion in dissent.
I have read more stories about people being acquitted or exonerated of crimes they did not commit because DNA evidence was collected after the fact.
Just don't know. I guess we'll have to see how this works out.
As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime.

but in the case of being aquitted you have the right to give your dna, not forced to give it.

As with any time one is arrested, DNA can be gathered off a drink cup, can, etc when a suspect is interrogated. As long as he or she has not been arrested, there is no right to remain silent. Maranda applies only to those who've been arrested and charged with a crime...
'It's not that difficult to acquire a DNA sample. Heck if a person enters a room and a hair with follicle falls onto a desk or table at which they sat, DNA can be collected from that.
Or the perspiration off a chair handle or arm. A coffee cup, Soda can, water bottle. Simple stuff.
The SCOTUS dealt with the notion of whether or not a person is under arrest in police custody must submit to the harvesting of a DNA sample.
I am not sure if there is a distinction between the finger printing of a suspect and a saliva sample.

I think you have an overblown idea of how easy it is to collect DNA samples from random objects.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is nothing strange about it. Scalia thinks the constitution allows the government to regulate what people do in private.

That's an absurd and false claim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scalia sided with the libs on this one and voted with the minority. It's hard to understand how the majority Court could determine that a person who isn't even convicted of a crime can have DNA, forcibly if necessary, taken and used against him/her in past and future crimes.

Law enforcement performs examinations on suspects all the time.
For example. A suspect in a shooting would have his hands swabbed for gunpowder residue.
The is not protected under the 4th amendment 'unreasonable searches and seizures' clause.
I believe this is where SCOTUS went with the upholding decision. The question here was "is the taking of a criminal suspect's DNA through a simple saliva sample an "unreasonable search or seizure"...it appears the answer of the majority was "no".

There is not a police department in the country that swabs for gun powder residue as a routine part of an investigation because it is not a reliable indicator of anything other than a positive result on the test. You can actually get a positive result for some tests by cooking bacon.