Supreme Court: Police Can Take DNA Sa...

Supreme Court: Police Can Take DNA Samples in Arrests

There are 19 comments on the Wall Street Journal story from Jun 3, 2013, titled Supreme Court: Police Can Take DNA Samples in Arrests. In it, Wall Street Journal reports that:

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's 5-4 majority and likened taking DNA samples to fingerprinting.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wall Street Journal.

The Worlds Biggest Lie

Pittsfield, MA

#1 Jun 3, 2013
Your rights, slidin down the shidder.
Socialism, Homofascism, Bolshevism, Communism.
Yup! The gangs all here. We deserve our fate.
Jim

Toronto, Canada

#2 Jun 3, 2013
stupid

Utica, NY

#3 Jun 3, 2013
can they test your dna for say drugs ? stds and or any other hippa act
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#4 Jun 3, 2013
How about visa versa? How do u Id police?
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#5 Jun 3, 2013
Ot tell if someone is out for your good or your goods?
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#6 Jun 3, 2013
Taking on the Gen Bank?
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#7 Jun 3, 2013
Looking for Sun fish?
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#8 Jun 3, 2013
Coracinus fish or it's origin?
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#9 Jun 3, 2013
Where's Walnut and fourth? William Penn's Chater of Liberties? Penn's treaty with the Indians?
stupid

Utica, NY

#10 Jun 3, 2013
yeah police should be DNA tested before employment and so the crime csi weeds out police dna also
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#11 Jun 3, 2013
What's the Liberty of the Anvil?
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#12 Jun 3, 2013
The ruling may solve more crimes, he said, but so would taking the DNA of anyone who flies on a plane, applies for a driverís license or attends public school.

What about railroading?
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#13 Jun 3, 2013
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#14 Jun 3, 2013
I still wondering if the court was bias, stupid or ignorant to technology since they considered dna or taken dna just another identifier.

The photos and fingerprints they take of you at the time of arrest are duplications or replicas of you and your identifying marks and tatoos etc. But they don't take them from you. Dna they take from you. To me that is an unlawfull seizure.

The courts/Kennedy's rationalization was that dna was just another identifier similar to finger prints. Again fingerprints are representation or duplication and not the actual thing.

Dna collection also violates hipaa laws because police information and/or court proceedings are supposed to be made public. The public now has unfeathered access to someone's actual medical information.

You would think the Republicant or CONservative justices would be more pro constitution. Instead most justices are faux politicians with an agenda to pursue, deals to be made and favors to be paid off.
stupid

Utica, NY

#15 Jun 3, 2013
will police officers be given a dna test before they are hired?? because officers are fingerprinted before they are hired and background checks are performed on them..? the dna test can be saved so the csi doesn't mix up dna of an officer at a crime..... just like how they weed out finger prints and shoes,, they can weed out the dna?
stupid

Utica, NY

#16 Jun 3, 2013
how is it that it can prove someone was there? it proves nothing about when the person was there? and or if it was planted now a finger print is different you have to be there to put it there dna can be dropped by anyone to frame you for a murder
stupid

Utica, NY

#17 Jun 3, 2013
also nowadays their is tec out there to clone people?
stupid

Utica, NY

#18 Jun 3, 2013
a finger print cant be placed dna can ? a finger print is concrete evidence it was you there and you who placed it there DNA can be stolen ?
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#19 Jun 4, 2013
stupid wrote:
how is it that it can prove someone was there? it proves nothing about when the person was there? and or if it was planted now a finger print is different you have to be there to put it there dna can be dropped by anyone to frame you for a murder
Although DNA testing is more complex it is much easier to obtain ie saliva, spit etc. This is the scary part-someone picks up your used coffee cup or eating utensils from a dinner they have your dna. It's actually harder to plant a finger print than dna. Hopefully this ruling doesn't exclude the rules of evidence including collection procedures. And DNA along with any other evidence must be put in it's proper context-were you there as vistor, service call etc or were there at all. Don't even want to get into contamination, miss matches, relatives, miss filing etc. But again DNA is much easier obtain and plant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Stephen Breyer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How SCOTUS' Same-Sex Ruling Impacts Couples' Fi... Jul '15 Fundies R Mentall... 7
News Supreme Court upholds use of controversial exec... Jul '15 davy 6
News Justices uphold use of drug implicated in botch... Jul '15 tod see the light 13
News Justices rule for Texas in dispute over license... Jun '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 4
News Justice Roberts Hints How He Could Justify Voti... May '15 WeTheSheeple 85
News Showtime for gay marriage May '15 see the light 10
News Supreme Court hears historic same-sex marriage ... Apr '15 discocrisco 1
More from around the web