TexasCHLforum.com

I find this ruling interesting. They have ruled that you can take a DNA swab while booking a prisoner. On one hand they already fingerprint a person being booked, so one could say this is another form of ID. On the other they recently ruled you cannot take a forced blood draw w/o a warrant when you arrest a DWI suspect. During the DWI arrest time is critical for a good blood sample. These two rulings seem to conflict IMO.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... r-scenario" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Police making warrantless arrests are now justified in using another identification tool: the DNA swab.

That's according to a 5-to-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, which ruled law enforcement officers can use a buccal swab, a way of collecting DNA from the cells inside a person's cheek, as part of their standard booking procedure for inmates.

texanjoker wrote:I find this ruling interesting. They have ruled that you can take a DNA swab while booking a prisoner. On one hand they already fingerprint a person being booked, so one could say this is another form of ID. On the other they recently ruled you cannot take a forced blood draw w/o a warrant when you arrest a DWI suspect. During the DWI arrest time is critical for a good blood sample. These two rulings seem to conflict IMO.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... r-scenario" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Police making warrantless arrests are now justified in using another identification tool: the DNA swab.

That's according to a 5-to-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, which ruled law enforcement officers can use a buccal swab, a way of collecting DNA from the cells inside a person's cheek, as part of their standard booking procedure for inmates.

Constitutional rights are overrated anyway.

Anygunanywhere

I've often wondered how many crimes could be solved by taking DNA samples of those already incarcerated. I've been of the opinion that the vast majority of crimes in this country are committed by a small percentage of recidivists who are treated to a revolving door prison policy.

But the DUI and even the possible arrest of a CHL after a shooting bring the DNA gathering into a different light. It would not be beyond imagination to be held overnight in jail even after a completely justifiable shooting, While I personally have nothing to fear from a DNA comparison, the act of collecting DNA from someone who hasn't been convicted or possibly even charged with a crime still seems shaky at best.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of our civil liberties. Only time will tell how it is actually used.

chasfm11 wrote:I've often wondered how many crimes could be solved by taking DNA samples of those already incarcerated. I've been of the opinion that the vast majority of crimes in this country are committed by a small percentage of recidivists who are treated to a revolving door prison policy.

But the DUI and even the possible arrest of a CHL after a shooting bring the DNA gathering into a different light. It would not be beyond imagination to be held overnight in jail even after a completely justifiable shooting, While I personally have nothing to fear from a DNA comparison, the act of collecting DNA from someone who hasn't been convicted or possibly even charged with a crime still seems shaky at best.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of our civil liberties. Only time will tell how it is actually used.

When I'm found not guilty, can I get my DNA records expunged?
I'm sure when my fingerprint records are expunged there's no copies left anywhere. /sarcasm

anygunanywhere wrote:Constitutional rights are overrated anyway.

Anygunanywhere

Don't worry, the GOP will save us.

to all the above.

I'm sure one of the deciding factors was a needle is invasive vs a swab that is not. Drawing someone's blood has risks that could ruin someone's life. During booking, I'm not sure I'd care about being swabbed.

Wes wrote:I'm sure one of the deciding factors was a needle is invasive vs a swab that is not.

It is if I don't open my mouth!

Of interest, Justice Scalia was not a member of the 5-4 majority on this ruling.

The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/35 ... s-halikias
Justice Scalia remains the only originalist on the current court.

Once again, a little farther down the slippery slope....

Individual rights are a concept entirely foreign to the collective. Only the Collective exists. The individual does not. Ergo, there are no such things as "individual rights."

Fast forward 50 years....

"Sir I see your DNA shows that your offspring are likely to have health issues. To prevent this from happening and being a burden on our International Health Care System we are going to need to put you through the mandatory sterilization process."


I can't believe that the so called conservative Judges voted yes on this. Truly a crying shame...

steveincowtown wrote:Fast forward 50 years....

"Sir I see your DNA shows that you offspring are likely to have health issues. To prevent this from happening and being a burden on our International Health Care System we are going to need to put you through the mandatory sterilization process."


I can't believe that the so called conservative Judges voted yes on this. Truly a crying shame...

I agree, this should have been a 9-0 slam dunk.

I am so disgusted by our Supreme Court....conservative.....my big toe. They are big gov't shills. Bit by bit step by step they are stomping all over our liberty and no one say boo to them.

Y'all realize this is really a moot point now, right? Thanks to Obamacare, the feds will have your DNA next time you have blood drawn for a routine cholesterol exam.

Aside from that, I'm on the fence with this ruling. In many ways, a DNA sample is not that much different from fingerprints. It's very different from drawing blood given that a swab is much less invasive and carries much less risk of cross-infection, pain, etc. What I find problematic about collecting DNA is that it's much more than just a uniquie identifier. You can't measure someone's genes from a fingerprint. A DNA sample contains vast amounts of private data that I don't want to give away. Also, fingerprinting is much more transparent since the entire process is conducted right in front of you. With a DNA swab, they have to send the sample off to a lab where they do who-knows-what with it and may potentially mix it up with someone else's sample.

gthaustex wrote:Once again, a little farther down the slippery slope....

and picking up speed!