In dissent, Scalia joins with court’s liberals to blast police DNA testing without warrant

Yahoo News ^ | 6/3/2013 | Kiz Goodwin

[South40]

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision Monday that police may take a DNA swab from people arrested for crimes without first getting a warrant to do so. In an unusual twist, the court's conservative firebrand, Antonin Scalia, joined three of his liberal colleagues in a scathing dissent that warns the court's decision paves the way for the creation of an invasive police state.

Scalia called the decision's scope "vast" and "scary," and said the DNA collection is an unequivocal violation of Americans' Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" of their bodies and homes.

"Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," he wrote.

[doc1019]

Not going to get any argument from me ... I AGREE.

[DoughtyOne]

My point is, if they take a swab and then freeze it, they have your DNA and can use it any time they like.

Lets say for instance your daughter happens to have some trait that is special. She goes to an abortion clinic and does some simple protesting. Then she gets rounded up by the police and taken to the station.

There she gets swabbed. And yes, they only process the sample now for identification.

But later on, someone realizes your daughter has eyesight that allows her to see twice as good as others in dim light.

This is determined to be a great trait. Now there’s a sample out there that can be purchased or even requisitioned from a government agency.

I’m sure there are other traits that would be desired.

Is it really something we should be complacent about, letting the government have a sample of our bodily fluids to use as they see fit?

At the very least, a person should have to be convicted of a felony before they could take their DNA.

[muawiyah]

Eventually it will occur to someone that human beings are almost clones of one another ~ oh, BTW, that's already been figured out ~ really not much difference individual to individual ~ but there are still millions of differences that make it possible to uniquely identify each of us with a simple test.

If they want to clone your daughter they will be able to do that quite soon ~ but why? Gene therapy for CF and other genetic based diseases or problems is being developed now. Someone with a better gene would probably not mind sharing it with the world.

Regarding seeing better in the dark, lots of folks already have that. And seeing RED with maybe 4X the accuity of everyone else ~ I can do that. Anyone needs a red gene, they got it. I'm not picky.

I draw the line at combining human DNA with animals and Democrats though.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Well then, a DNA sample should become mandatory as one files for ANY elected office of trust in the US.

[PghBaldy]

Or, it means they are right.

[PghBaldy]

They aren’t taking DNA to identify the arrestees.

[EDINVA]

At first blush I think Scalia is right, but which lib voted with the “conservatives” on the court?

[Georgia Girl 2]

The police state is already here. The SCOTUS is just putting on the finishing touches.

[Christie at the beach]

I am with Scalia. Once the government has your DNA, they have complete control.

Why do people want to give away their rights so easily and put their trust into a government that is suppose to always do the right thing.

[EDINVA]

OK, so I clicked the link to find that the 3 lib women voted with Scalia; Breyer joined the conservatives.

[Clump]

Roberts isn’t a liberal or it would have been 5-4 the other way.
He is a Statist, just like Breyer.

[KTM rider]

the police are such liars, why even bother collecting DNA when they can just say they found yours at the scene whenever they want anyway,

or better yet, they cam all just act like Las Vegas metro, just shoot on sight and avoid that whole legnthy trial mess

[VideoDoctor]

Needless to say this means ALL police agencies will need MORE TAXPAYER MONEY in order to create, build, and gather this DNA database.

Government just got even BIGGER and at our expense yet AGAIN.

[Clump]

Breyer voted with the “conservatives”.
He is the Chief statist on the court, with Roberts as runner up.

[OneWingedShark]

or better yet, they cam all just act like Las Vegas metro, just shoot on sight and avoid that whole legnthy trial mess

And make the videos disappear... you know how utterly unreliable multiple recording systems are.

[Rockingham]

Even when an arrestee’s identity is not in doubt, a DNA sample nevertheless provides a means of identification like fingerprints and mug shots. In that wider sense, identity data is sought and justified as a way to connect — or clear — the arrestee as a suspect in other crimes.

[New Jersey Realist]

I can’t believe most of the comments here. DNA is certainly unique to an individual. So are fingerprints. Your DNA cannot hurt you unless you do something wrong. I believe everyone’s DNA should be registered. If you ever lost a child or had one buried unknown to you as a John Doe you would know what I mean. What is the harm in anyone knowing your DNA? GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE?

[GeronL]

I don’t think its any of the governments business to be collecting and storing DNA of its supposedly free citizens.

[New Jersey Realist]

Then I guess you totally agree with this guy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3026837/posts

[Stirner]

You are right. The genie us out of the bottle. DNA is getting cheaper to analyze, and private databases will spring up even if the government is somehow restrained. Privacy and anonymity are dead.