End the Lie

Supreme Court approves warrantless DNA sampling, likens it to fingerprinting and photographing

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

By End the Lie

U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 (Image credit: Supreme Court)

U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 (Image credit: Supreme Court)

Law enforcement can now force suspects arrested for serious crimes to give samples of their DNA without a warrant, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday.

This is surely going to be a controversial decision, as their ruling siding with Monsanto over patents on “self-replicating technology” in May was.

Both law enforcement officials and privacy groups were keeping a close eye on the Court’s decision in this case because at least 27 states, along with the federal government, currently have regulations requiring suspects to give DNA samples when arrested for allegedly committing certain crimes, regardless of conviction.

In the states that have these laws, the DNA samples harvested from suspects are then cataloged in state and federal databases, again without conviction.

While DNA evidence is obviously a good thing, especially when it exonerates innocent men, the problem is some states have refused to allow DNA tests when they could prove men sentenced to death to be innocent.

Will this ruling change that disturbing practice? Probably not. This ruling seems to be more about harvesting DNA than exonerating inmates.

The Supreme Court’s decision reversed a 2012 court ruling which said that taking DNA samples from suspects without a warrant was a breach of the Fourth Amendment right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, ruled that taking a DNA sample was really no different from fingerprinting, photographing, tattoo matching, etc.

“A DNA profile is useful to the police because it gives them a form of identification to search the records already in their valid possession,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. “In this respect the use of DNA for identification is no different than matching an arrestee’s face to a wanted poster of a previously unidenti­fied suspect; or matching tattoos to known gang symbols to reveal a criminal affiliation; or matching the arrestee’s fingerprints to those recovered from a crime scene.”

“DNA is another metric of identifica­tion used to connect the arrestee with his or her public persona, as reflected in records of his or her actions that are available to the police,” Kennedy wrote.

According to Kennedy, to not “insist on fingerprints as the norm would make little sense to either the forensic expert or the layperson.”

The majority of the Supreme Court also said that DNA sampling “may have the salutary effect of freeing a person wrongfully imprisoned for the same offense” Indeed it can, and has, the only problem is that states can block the tests as seen in the cases linked above.

The four justices who did not side with the majority saw some disturbing implications in the ruling.

“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,” Justice Antonin Scalia warned in a dissenting opinion.

Scalia, a conservative, was joined in his dissent by three of the more liberal justices including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Court’s ruling was in the case of Maryland v. King which began with the arrest of Alonzo King for a gun-related assault charge.

“King was convicted of the gun charge, but officials also matched his DNA to evidence from an unsolved rape case,” Gavin Aronsen wrote for Mother Jones. “King was convicted of the gun charge, but officials also matched his DNA to evidence from an unsolved rape case. That, King argued, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Maryland’s Supreme Court agreed.”

More background on the case was given in a February report by Mother Jones.

The court in Maryland saw fingerprinting very differently from the Supreme Court.

“A fingerprint, for example, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity,” notes David Kravets for Threat Level. “But much more can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.”

Scalia used a quite effective argumentum ad absurdum to show just how dangerous the Supreme Court’s decision really is.

“Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the ‘identity’ of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school,” Scalia wrote.

“Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection,” he added.

Obviously the issue was not whether DNA samples can be taken from convicts. The question was if DNA samples can be taken from arrestees – long before they’re convicted or have the charges against them dropped – and placed into a database. The disturbing answer is apparently, “Yes.”

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at [email protected]

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

5 Responses to Supreme Court approves warrantless DNA sampling, likens it to fingerprinting and photographing

  1. Warrior June 3, 2013 at 3:48 PM

    There is a pattern developing with the ROBES of the Supreme Court. Every individual right we have as a citizen is being given to Corporations who are a collective group!


    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests By ADAM LIPTAK Published: June 3, 2013


    Kelo: Five Years Later


    Commission) affect campaign finance laws in the 50 states? This video explains the laws as they are, and how they might change.

    How does the Citizens United ruling impact state campaign finance laws?

  2. jb June 4, 2013 at 5:49 AM

    The problem with relying on fingerprints is that there has never been, to this date, any reliable study to prove the long held assumption that each person’s fingerprints are unique. The US Dept of Justice released a study in summary form only and it was immediately challenged by multiple critics. A futher analysis of this study actually found the that DoJ labeled three prints as unique when they were, in fact, three different prints of the same person’s finger!

    As for DNA being able to be taken from an arrestee before they are convicted, of course this makes sense. A criminals leaves their DNA at the scene of a crime along with their fingerprints so both are fair game for collection in the process of an investigation.

    • Anonymous June 4, 2013 at 12:32 PM

      jb the issue is if a warrant should be required or not. did you even read the article?!??

      also, you must think those 4 supreme court justices are a bunch of idiots… chances are youre not as bright as you think

  3. Nora June 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    Oh hell no, this is not right. The fourth amendment is still in effect, folks. What is it with these globalist scumbags that they are so obsessed with DNA? We are thrown under the global bus again by Obama’s planted justices. Scalia had it right. There really isn’t any need to acquire the DNA of anybody who is arrested, any more than there is a need to spy on our emails, listen to our phone calls and snoop through our text messages. What if you are arrested for something you didn’t do? Are they going to toss that swab because you’re proven innocent in a court of law? No, they are going to hang onto it, because it’s their property, like you are. I’ve had enough of this crap. Get the cuffs and round up these assholes.

  4. jhpace1 June 5, 2013 at 7:53 AM

    I’m unsure to the endpoint of all this DNA harvesting. Is it to know a person’s genetic heritage more fully than he or she knows themselves? Will it be guilt by association, where if you have a 75% genetic match to an unknown serial killer, you are the one arrested and interrogated? Will it be to find those random genetic quirks in the population, such as organ donors for the aging elite or to create new pharma drugs? Is it to further pigeonhole people into collectivist society, not only by birth, wealth, education, but by genetic disposition? Is it to find every possible deficiency in a person’s genetic structure, and then deny them any insurance coverage for their potential problems for the rest of their lives, or to deny them employment in certain fields?

    We’re not being told where the road that we are being set upon leads to.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>