This post might provide an interesting look at whether the readership is more of the libertarian-leaning type (probably more akin to Rob) or more the law-and-order type conservative like I suppose I would categorize myself.
Because to this ruling, I say: Go Supremes!
In 2009 a man named Alonzo King was arrested on first-degree assault charges after he menaced a crowd of people with a shotgun. Police took a DNA sample when he was booked at the station house under a Maryland law that allows collection from suspects taken into custody with probable cause.
The sample was run through a DNA database and revealed that King had raped a woman in her home in 2003 on the basis of forensic evidence collected from the victim. King sued, claiming that without a warrant the test violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches, and the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy reversed that decision, holding that genetic information can be reasonably obtained for the purposes of identifying the person. People in custody have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and accurately assessing the risks a suspect poses to the public is critical. That is especially true for criminal history, since violent criminals tend to be recidivists. Justice Kennedy equates DNA with the routine practice of fingerprinting suspects, which the courts have long upheld.
The only difference between fingerprints and a DNA sample is . . . well that's the point. There is no difference. It's just that one has been an established aspect of police work longer than the other has, because in the case of the latter, the science is newer. Just as it's permissible to collect fingerprints as an identifying mark of an individual and to log that information into law enforcement databases, there's no reason it shouldn't be permissible to collect DNA in the same way and to the same end.
What is the civil liberties objection to the one as opposed to the other? I can see why it would bother criminals, because it's not that difficult to commit a crime without leaving your fingerprints on the scene (wear gloves), but it's much more difficult to avoid leaving a trace of your DNA. If the priority is to help criminals escape culpability for their crimes, then I can see the argument against this.
Otherwise, what is it, apart from a general don't-like-the-scope-of-big-government type of objection? And if that's the case, please explain why fingerprints are OK but DNA is not.
I want to hear the argument. Tell me. Or do I have more law-and-order friends out there than I tend to think I do?
