SCOTUS rules DNA can be gathered when arrested, no different than fingerprints

[cptau 169]

Perhaps there is a makeup detectable in DNA that one day makes it possible to predict someone could develop Alzheimer's or some other mental disorder. If the government knows this, you might not be considered trusted to keep a drivers license, pilots license, etc.... You might even be put on a watch list. Would law enforcement use of DNA profiling be legal?

It's a little like that movie Minority Report.

[alexava 6,974]

Perhaps there is a makeup detectable in DNA that one day makes it possible to predict someone could develop Alzheimer's or some other mental disorder. If the government knows this, you might not be considered trusted to keep a drivers license, pilots license, etc.... You might even be put on a watch list. Would law enforcement use of DNA profiling be legal?

It a little like that movie Minority Report.

we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I would also be in favor of taking Alzheimer sufferers off the road. Now we cant even if we know they are dangerous. I could not get past the first 5minutes of that movie.

[alexava 6,974]

I dont think im that interesting.

Hah!

Me either. But, like we are now seeing with the patriot act, as well as local law enforcement tracking people by their cell phones, they always promise not to abuse power. They lie.

i understand what you are saying. I just dont care if they are tracking me. I'll give them the finger and proceed with my business.

[MDM4AU 337]

Of course "conservatives" don't care as long as it doesn't affect the 2nd amendment.

Scalia disagrees with you.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Perhaps there is a makeup detectable in DNA that one day makes it possible to predict someone could develop Alzheimer's or some other mental disorder. If the government knows this, you might not be considered trusted to keep a drivers license, pilots license, etc.... You might even be put on a watch list. Would law enforcement use of DNA profiling be legal?

It a little like that movie Minority Report.

we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I would also be in favor of taking Alzheimer sufferers off the road. Now we cant even if we know they are dangerous. I could not get past the first 5minutes of that movie.

Yes, LEO can make request for person to be retested for driving privileges. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't drive, but that they could be denied a valid driver's license.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Why does the 4th amendment exist anymore? What a horrible decision.

Of course "conservatives" don't care as long as it doesn't affect the 2nd amendment.

Well, I guess as long as you don't get arrested then you have nothing to be worried about right?? If it's collected for LE use then I'm all for it. LIke another posted pointed out, so many cases in the past have gone unsolved b/c there was no way to test or compare the biological evidence that was collected. This will be a HUGE step to be able to capture and hopefully keep violent predators out of society! This shows another area where the Constitution is maybe outdated, just in that technological advances in biological sciences has made DNA, blood, tissue evidence vital in convicting these criminals. This could even transcend down to the common burglar, who doesn't necessarily physically hurt people by his crimes, but the emotional and mental toll is very hard on most people when their homes are violated. Most burglars will burglarize 30, 40, 50 homes before they are finally caught and convicted on maybe one or two, but IF they leave a biological evidence behind at 10, 20 of those then this guy go away a LONG time.

There is no reason for the collections to be sent anywhere other than crime lab, i.e. experimental lab or other government facility. Should be for LE use only, in my opinion.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Why does the 4th amendment exist anymore? What a horrible decision.

Of course "conservatives" don't care as long as it doesn't affect the 2nd amendment.

Well, I guess as long as you don't get arrested then you have nothing to be worried about right?? If it's collected for LE use then I'm all for it. LIke another posted pointed out, so many cases in the past have gone unsolved b/c there was no way to test or compare the biological evidence that was collected. This will be a HUGE step to be able to capture and hopefully keep violent predators out of society! This shows another area where the Constitution is maybe outdated, just in that technological advances in biological sciences has made DNA, blood, tissue evidence vital in convicting these criminals. This could even transcend down to the common burglar, who doesn't necessarily physically hurt people by his crimes, but the emotional and mental toll is very hard on most people when their homes are violated. Most burglars will burglarize 30, 40, 50 homes before they are finally caught and convicted on maybe one or two, but IF they leave a biological evidence behind at 10, 20 of those then this guy go away a LONG time.

There is no reason for the collections to be sent anywhere other than crime lab, i.e. experimental lab or other government facility. Should be for LE use only, in my opinion.

1) There is a TON of backlogged rape kits with untested DNA evidence shelved across the country right now. Many of those could convict or exonerate people behind bars or who should be behind bars. What's to say this won't go the same way? It's not super simple to just get a DNA test back at this scale.

2) You can be arrested for anything. Arrest doesn't mean you were in fact doing anything at all wrong. Sometimes cops do it just to be a dick, or because they have a vendetta. You think just saying "well the law arrested him he must have been doing something wrong" is a valid excuse?

[Aufan59 168]

Well, I guess as long as you don't get arrested then you have nothing to be worried about right?? If it's collected for LE use then I'm all for it. LIke another posted pointed out, so many cases in the past have gone unsolved b/c there was no way to test or compare the biological evidence that was collected. This will be a HUGE step to be able to capture and hopefully keep violent predators out of society! This shows another area where the Constitution is maybe outdated, just in that technological advances in biological sciences has made DNA, blood, tissue evidence vital in convicting these criminals. This could even transcend down to the common burglar, who doesn't necessarily physically hurt people by his crimes, but the emotional and mental toll is very hard on most people when their homes are violated. Most burglars will burglarize 30, 40, 50 homes before they are finally caught and convicted on maybe one or two, but IF they leave a biological evidence behind at 10, 20 of those then this guy go away a LONG time.

There is no reason for the collections to be sent anywhere other than crime lab, i.e. experimental lab or other government facility. Should be for LE use only, in my opinion.

With this logic, why even have rights? If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of!

[AUDub 11,784]

Someone with your DNA would know more about you than you do.

This depends on how it's used. Given current precedent, if considered analogous to fingerprinting (searching for a match) then there really isn't much to justify it being impermissible in court or collection during booking.

Maybe a warrant should be necessary for prints as well. I'm not really sure. Maybe we need to reexamine how we interpret the fourth amendment wholesale.

[homersapien 12,172]

Someone with your DNA would know more about you than you do.

This depends on how it's used. Given current precedent, if considered analogous to fingerprinting (searching for a match) then there really isn't much to justify it being impermissible in court or collection during booking.

Maybe a warrant should be necessary for prints as well. I'm not really sure. Maybe we need to reexamine how we interpret the fourth amendment wholesale.

Part of the problem here is nobody really understands the technology being proposed (including me).

Assuming that a DNA analysis sufficient for identification purposes is far less extensive than the analysis used for characterizing one's health proclivities (for example), I don't see how there could be much of an argument against it. It would essentially be equivalent to fingerprint analysis (although much more useful).

On the other hand, if the "identification analysis procedure" yielded the same data as a "full characterization" analysis, there is obviously a potential problem.

DNA analysis for identification is not a full genome sequencing.