Picture
By: Adam Liptak
Published: February 26, 2013
New York Times

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court argued over whether the police should take DNA samples from people they arrest. The argument that some people have is that this practice could potentially go against the Fourth Amendment, which states that there can be no unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires any warrant to be supported by probable cause. The question that has arisen is whether the Fourth Amendment should allow DNA to be collected from people who have "merely been arrested and so are presumed innocent.”

A case that collected DNA from a suspect is being reexamined because the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The case was about a man named Alonzo Jay King Jr. who was arrested on assault charges in Wicomico County, Maryland. He had a DNA test done by swabbing the inside of his cheek and found that his DNA matched evidence found in a rape case from 2003. But the court recently said that “a state law authorizing DNA collection from people arrested but not yet convicted violates the Fourth Amendment.”

But the opposing view said that “this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades.” The state of Maryland has had a lot of success with DNA testing because they have arrested 42 people based on DNA evidence. But Maryland uses this method only for people who are arrested for serious crimes. One supporter of this said that people lose some of their rights when they are arrested and other man said it is fairly easy to obtain genetic material just by testing a glass of water that you drank out of.

A supporter of Maryland’s DNA testing system said that soon DNA will be able to be analyzed in 90 minutes. Justice Scalia said that the laws purpose it “to catch the bad guys, which is a good thing, but the Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-dna-sampling.html

Catherine Soltesz
2/28/2013 09:39:35 am

Although collecting DNA from each person that gets arrested might solve more criminal cases, I think it is an invasion of personal privacy. If the police feel they need a DNA sample from someone they arrest, they are able to get a warrant. However, if it is a serious arrest, like murder, it should be allowed.

Reply
Matthew Nickles
3/4/2013 12:10:40 am

It is interesting to think of DNA sampling as an act of "search and seizure." I agree that in serious criminal cases that DNA sampling should be aloud. First of all, you need certain serious evidence against you to be arrested for a crime in the first place, which falls under the fourth amendment as a means to obtain that information, however, after you are arrested, I feel like the DNA sampling aspect is critical in making absolutely sure that a convicted criminal is in fact guilty. I think DNA sampling is there more to protect people than finding evidence to convict somebody.

Reply
Paige Gallagher
3/8/2013 06:22:34 am

I think that this is really interesting that this is starting to be a topic to discuss. By recieving samples of everyones DNA that you arrest, could in many cases solve many cases and trials. However it could also be dangerous to people who did not have anything to do with the particular crime. Also DNA testing is very expensive and if you were to go around testing everyones DNA, i have a feeling they would build up a large bill.

Reply
Raj Bhagowalia
3/14/2013 03:47:42 am

This is a very interesting idea. DNA sampling could facilitate the way in which we find and lock up criminals guilty of serious crimes. It could also deter many people from committing crimes, because they know that your DNA is unchangeable, and if you leave any evidence in the heat of the moment at a crime scene, you will be caught.

Reply



Leave a Reply.