maryland vs king

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-police-d...ccmt-container


scotus ruled 5-4 that states and the fed can collect dna at arrest, not conviction, and overturns a lower court ruling in maryland.


i've read this article, and went to scotus blog, but i need to read more. but at present, i have to say i'm not happy with the ruling at all.
and as a yahoo commenter said, if you're arrested, but not convicted-what happens to your dna? is it retained, and for how long? what about search and seizure and probable cause for searches?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://news.yahoo.com/court-police-d...ccmt-container


scotus ruled 5-4 that states and the fed can collect dna at arrest, not conviction, and overturns a lower court ruling in maryland.


i've read this article, and went to scotus blog, but i need to read more. but at present, i have to say i'm not happy with the ruling at all.
and as a yahoo commenter said, if you're arrested, but not convicted-what happens to your dna? is it retained, and for how long? what about search and seizure and probable cause for searches?

I don't like it, either.

What's really weird is how the voting line broke. The 4 dissenting votes were Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan... and Scalia. I wonder if it made Sonia's and Fat Tony's heads explode to find themselves on the same side of an issue.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I don't like it, either.

What's really weird is how the voting line broke. The 4 dissenting votes were Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan... and Scalia. I wonder if it made Sonia's and Fat Tony's heads explode to find themselves on the same side of an issue.

yeah, i guess court can make strange bedfellows....

people bring up fingerprinting as a comparison, but is it a valid comparison? is an arrest really enough to warrant dna collection?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i guess court can make strange bedfellows....

people bring up fingerprinting as a comparison, but is it a valid comparison? is an arrest really enough to warrant dna collection?

I'm tired so forgive me if I am missing something obvious, but if you aren't opposed to fingerprint collection then why DNA assuming the same rights are observed

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I'm tired so forgive me if I am missing something obvious, but if you aren't opposed to fingerprint collection then why DNA assuming the same rights are observed

I don't see a difference either...when arrested your prints are taken and retained if you are not charged or found quilty..why not the same with DNA?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I'm tired so forgive me if I am missing something obvious, but if you aren't opposed to fingerprint collection then why DNA assuming the same rights are observed

I've asked myself the same thing, and have been trying to find out how fingerprints are handled once taken. Like I said to others, I am not sure yet if it is a good or bad thing, and I am trying to find as much info as possible.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...gerprints.html


found that, in a search i just did (after that great hockey game, of course) from '05.

as for fingerprints and me being ok with them--i'm not sure when they started using and filing them, but probably before my time. guess it's something i never thought about, til now.

dna is supposed to be removed if there's no charges, or they're exonerated-as the article above says fingerprints are supposed to be...but like the above says, that doesn't always happen.
i feel like this is just a more invasive way of search/seizure. i guess i also didn't realize til reading about the ruling that states collected dna at arrest, not conviction (arkansas collects at conviction).