Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search

That is statement from supreme court.

See quote from supreme court



"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the majority wrote.

Jiro said:
not really.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
That is statement from supreme court.

See quote from supreme court

"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the majority wrote.
Click to expand...

exactly what did you think what "serious offense" means? murder? aggravated assault with weapon?

nope..... it's called a felony arrest. a shoplifting charge can easily change into a felony arrest.
 
Only if they are valued over $1,000.

What difference does it make even over the years police always fingerprints the suspect when they going though booking when it comes to collect DNA?

Jiro said:
exactly what did you think what "serious offense" means? murder? aggravated assault with weapon?

nope..... it's called a felony arrest. a shoplifting charge can easily change into a felony arrest.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Only if they are valued over $1,000.
Click to expand...
resisting the arrest. evasion. etc.

diehardbiker said:
What difference does it make even over the years police always fingerprints the suspect when they going though booking when it comes to collect DNA?
Click to expand...
you've had your reason and I've had mine. I've already explained. scroll back up.
 
diehardbiker said:
What difference does it make even over the years police always fingerprints the suspect when they going though booking when it comes to collect DNA?
Click to expand...

I bet they meant serious offense based on the circumstances of the crime. It will be up to individual local/state police agencies to make decision on when to use the dna test based on their budget or department motto.

Police aren't going to waste resources, like ~$1,000 PCR test on a petty theft suspect or graffiti vandal. The higher quality DNA tests costs several thousands, up to hundred thousands. The most accurate dna testing is called Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) testing, some police I read have turned it down because it costed too much to prove a crime so the suspected (identical twins) got away with it.
 
Why resisting arrest with minor offenses? Those who know they are fugitive will do anything to resist being arrested even with cute case.

When one resists, it only raise the suspicious to the point where they can search beyond.

Jiro said:
resisting the arrest. evasion. etc.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Good! They are going to free up more innocents from prisons! I think it is much fairer that way.

DNA itself has its own advantage, it is impossible for criminals to walk away from crime scene squeaky clean.
Click to expand...

Not really, in fact, the police can more easily attach a crime to any person, guilty or innocent once they have that person's DNA.

We don't need more DNA laws, we need laws that protect evidence from improper use. Nobody is watching the police except the police and, lets face it, they do a bad job policing themselves because it is not in their best interest.
 
diehardbiker said:
Why resisting arrest with minor offenses? Those who know they are fugitive will do anything to resist being arrested even with cute case.

When one resists, it only raise the suspicious to the point where they can search beyond.
Click to expand...

because they wanna escape.

or... repeat after me - trumped up charges. ever notice that in almost handful of arrests - resisting arrest charge is also included?
 
naisho said:
It's not good for the general law abiding citizens of the US, but it is good for criminal investigations. It means giving the law agencies (the government) more power and less privacy for the citizens.

It also (most likely) will put all suspected people's DNA in state or federal dna databanks. That means regardless if they actually committed the crime or not, a suspected person's dna is now in a databank to be used for future purposes. See virginia's databank: VA DFS - DNA Databank Statistics

It also means more work for law agencies - see attached. This area of problem is called "dna backlogs" due to the rising records requested for dna evidence.
Click to expand...

Thats what i meant by being found innocent or no longer being a suspect. After that they should get rid of your file but why would they when there is no law that says they have too.
 
Exactly the reason for DNA testing.

I watched local news about this one, they said applies only 1/3 of all arrests made, the other 2/3 won't have to worry about it.

I don't think they will ever expand because of cost involved. Testing every time is going to cost them dearly in long run.

Jiro said:
because they wanna escape.

or... repeat after me - trumped up charges. ever notice that in almost handful of arrests - resisting arrest charge is also included?
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Exactly the reason for DNA testing.
Click to expand...
exactly what reason? for escaping? uh.. why would you need DNA for that? just a picture of escapee's face posted on evening news and wanted poster are more than good enough. the cheapest and most effective way to find'em.

diehardbiker said:
I watched local news about this one, they said applies only 1/3 of all arrests made, the other 2/3 won't have to worry about it.
Click to expand...
sure... sure.... sure..... says them... don't be naive. :lol:

diehardbiker said:
I don't think they will ever expand because of cost involved. Testing every time is going to cost them dearly in long run.
Click to expand...
same ole' argument I've been hearing for years. that still didn't stop the government from recording and spying on us.
 
Interesting divide in the court. The dissent was Scalia and the 3 women. I would be in the dissent as well. I am kind of shocked by the court, this seems like a crystal clear violation of the 4th.
 
Jiro said:
exactly what did you think what "serious offense" means? murder? aggravated assault with weapon?

nope..... it's called a felony arrest. a shoplifting charge can easily change into a felony arrest.
Click to expand...

Yes, no doubt.

diehardbiker said:
Only if they are valued over $1,000.

What difference does it make even over the years police always fingerprints the suspect when they going though booking when it comes to collect DNA?
Click to expand...

That's not true at all - depends on state.

In our state, if you steal the value at $500 is felony, however the officer could charge with felony if you steal at less value.
 
TXgolfer said:
Interesting divide in the court. The dissent was Scalia and the 3 women. I would be in the dissent as well. I am kind of shocked by the court, this seems like a crystal clear violation of the 4th.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you.

I'm questioning about DNA and their mismatches - I don't want wrong person end up in trouble because of planted DNA - that what Naisho said above.
 
Back
Top