Supreme Court: Police Can Take Your DNA Upon Arrest
In what's been hailed as a "resounding victory for law enforcement," a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can collect DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes.
In what’s been hailed as a “resounding victory for law enforcement,” a sharply divided Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling when it decided Monday that police can collect DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes.
“DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 majority opinion. “Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
The case made for strange bedfellows, as ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia was joined in his scathing dissent by three of the court’s liberal justices. Scalia argued that the case paves the way for increased DNA testing, which he says violates the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches.
“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Scalia wrote. “This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA whenever you fly on an airplane.”
The Hill:
The majority upheld a Maryland law allowing police to take DNA swabs from people who are charged with violent crimes, as long as they have probable cause for an arrest.
The case involves Alonzo King, who was arrested in 2009 on charges of first-degree assault. Police took a DNA sample and matched his DNA to an unsolved rape. King was tried and convicted in the rape but sued to have the DNA evidence suppressed.
He said taking a DNA swab without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
The case is Maryland v. King. The opinion can be read here.
— Posted by Tracy Bloom.
Dig, Root, GrowThis year, we’re all on shaky ground, and the need for independent journalism has never been greater. A new administration is openly attacking free press — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Your support is more than a donation. It helps us dig deeper into hidden truths, root out corruption and misinformation, and grow an informed, resilient community.
Independent journalism like Truthdig doesn't just report the news — it helps cultivate a better future.
Your tax-deductible gift powers fearless reporting and uncompromising analysis. Together, we can protect democracy and expose the stories that must be told.
Dig. Root. Grow. Cultivate a better future.
Donate today.
A new report reveals Connecticut has failed its low-income families, locking them out of opportunities while creating pockets of poverty.
After the Supreme Court's potentially devastating decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, it's up to we the people to reclaim our democracy.
Civil rights advocates warn that a new 5-4 decision "legalizes torture and effectively reverses 60 years of progressive precedent."
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
Despite the considerable cloud over his head, Brett Kavanaugh is joining the Supreme Court after what may best be described as a plutocratic coup by the ruling-but-minority Republican Party.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.