16
   

Justice Scalia and Supreme Court's Ruling on DNA

 
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 08:56 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman wrote:
How can DNA sampling be avoided if there is reasonable cause to suspect a potential perp?


Your question implies a factual premise that is false. There was no probable cause in this case. The state of Maryland had arrested a certain Mr. King for one crime. Then it ran his DNA against a database of unsolved crimes, all unrelated to the crime for which it had originally arrested him. Maryland got lucky, found a match for King's DNA for one of the crimes in the database, and eventually convicted King for that crime, too. But Maryland never had probable cause to search for evidence of King's involvement in that other crime. (Its alleged justification for running his DNA was to identify him, not to follow a forensic lead.)
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 10:44 am
The DNA could be analyzed for ancestral origins. Meaning that we would see that some people who check off "white" on a census may be more of a rainbow. It might help this society to be less balkanized. It might get some people off of their high horses, so to speak.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 10:47 am
@Foofie,
and then what, we fine them every time they check the wrong box?

or throw them in jail for 30 days...
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:00 pm
@rosborne979,
I'm concerned about both Verizon and DNA. I still don't have full convidence in the absolute value of DNA analysis. I'm thinking of the big mess in Boston, where a tech in the crime lab messed up thousands of test samples, resulting in the freeing of numerous criminals from jail.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:05 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
(Its alleged justification for running his DNA was to identify him, not to follow a forensic lead.)
Neither of us are certain on that point. He wasn't shotgun sampled, he was sampled because there was a stated reasonable suspicion,(Im not certain of what that suspicion was based upon but it was there).
The USSC decision was therefore very narrow in its pronouncement.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:07 pm
@Miller,
Lab cleanups on samples can result in a number of errors , and the budgets wont cover doops.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 03:58 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Neither of us are certain on that point.

Speak for yourself Smile . I am certain on that point because I've read both the decision of the court and Scalia's dissent. (PDF) That's how I know that the justification Maryland put forward for running King's DNA was that they needed to identify him as the perpetrator of a 2009 assault. Maryland did not claim it had a reasonable suspicion that he committed the 2003 rape that the database ended up matching him with. The match with the rape was just a happy coincidence.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 04:41 pm
@rosborne979,
Me too.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 06:23 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
The Act serves a well-established, legitimate government interest:
the need of law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate
way to process and identify persons and possessions taken into custody.
“[P]robable cause provides legal justification for arresting a
[suspect], and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative
steps incident to arrest,” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 113–
114; and the “validity of the search of a person incident to a lawful
arrest” is settled, United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224. Individual
suspicion is not necessary. The “routine administrative procedure[
s] at a police station house incident



You've ascended DNA sampling by buccal swab as an UNREASONABLE SEARCH. How then do you define fingerprinting?


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 06:28 pm
@farmerman,
Im also a bit tired of lawyers having hetded us into beliving that any previous felonies of an individual do not serve relevance for a subsequent felony.

Probable cause is good enough for a search warrant or a fingerprint. Now a mouth swab is added in limited circumstances. ID GET USED TO IT!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 07:41 pm
@InfraBlue,
That's because you have a cartoonish impression of Scalia
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 07:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
As has been noted by engineer, the government can do a lot more with a DNA sample than with a fingerprint.

If you buy that the government is always benign, albeit sometimes inept, then it's not such a big deal.

There are good reasons we try hard to keep the government at bay.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:11 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
You've ascended DNA sampling by buccal swab as an UNREASONABLE SEARCH. How then do you define fingerprinting?

If it's run against a database that keys fingerprints to people's names, I'm calling it identification and have no problem with it. But if it's run against a database keying the fingerprints to every unsolved crime in the state, that's a fishing expedition. I'd call that an unreasonable search, because it would have been done without probable cause. Either way, my judgment is the same whether the key to the database is a fingerprint or a DNA sequence. Why do you keep insinuating that I treat DNA inconsistently with fingerprints?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:46 am
@Thomas,
The goal of your argument is to better define UNREASONABLE so that your point makes sense
Quote:
keying the fingerprints to every unsolved crime in the state, that's a fishing expedition. I'd call that an unreasonable search,
Well, in the limted sense of the USSC opinion , the justices in the majority disagree with you. So we can take fingerprints, we just shouldn't be allowed to stick them in a data base even with a probable cause?

Id like to see DNA technology expanded , along the lines of the opinion at hand. Your opinion seems to be that , if we develop a new technology, its use should automatically be considered a violation of the fourth amendment

This is one of the areas in which I am more conservative. The rights of victims have been gradually eroded in exchange for so many rights that weve granted perpetrators that the rules of evidence are almost impossible to follow in court prep.
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 05:30 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Well, in the limted sense of the USSC opinion , the justices in the majority disagree with you.

Sure. If they're wrong and I'm right, as I contend they are, then of course they'll disagree with me!

farmerman wrote:
So we can take fingerprints, we just shouldn't be allowed to stick them in a data base even with a probable cause?

If you have probable cause that Person X has committed crime Y, of course the state should run X's DNA against the database entry for Y. But that's not what the state did here. Maryland had arrested King for crime Y, and then ran his DNA against the database entries for crime W, crime Z, and every other unsolved crime in the state. Maryland had no probable cause for that, and did not claim that it did. Go back to your own quote from the court's opinion: the stated purpose of the database search was King's identification, not investigations into any of those other crimes.

Farmerman wrote:
Your opinion seems to be that , if we develop a new technology, its use should automatically be considered a violation of the fourth amendment

Then you're not trying very hard to understand my opinion. My opinion is that fishing expeditions with new technologies have the same Fourth-Amendment status as fishing expeditions with old technology. Either way, fishing expeditions are unconstitutional. Despite your efforts to spin it that way, it's not about the new technology!
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 05:38 am
@Miller,
Quote:
"The proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection." - Scalia


Did they support injustice?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 02:14 pm
I would prefer everyone's DNA be obtained at birth, worldwide. We can then figure out what genomes result in which diseases. People can then be given a carte blanche to smoke, since their respective genome might never get cancer or heart disease?
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 03:45 pm
@Foofie,
All collected DNA will be placed into a database. It will be there for lawyers, doctors , insurance reps and others to use as they see fit.

Once the genome has been analyzed, many ( but not all ) diseases or disease states, which have a genetic basis may be detectable. With time, individuals could see their insurance premiums rise because of some of the genes they carry, especially those assoicated with severe chronic conditions.

Others may be denied admission to college, graduate school, the military because of their DNA as presented in the database.

What effect will this DNA data have on future births? Will parents be forced to abort their babies because of "errors" in the child's DNA?

Will young couples be prevented from marrying each other because of errors in their DNA if they plan on having children?

What effect will this DNA database have on future generations ( hundreds of years from now)?

InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 04:32 pm
@Thomas,
Isn't that what the state does when it runs one's name through a database when, for example, it's law enforcement officers stop an individual for a traffic infringement, though?

DNA is merely another identifier, albeit much more exact than the name of an individual.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jun, 2013 04:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

That's because you have a cartoonish impression of Scalia


If Scalia's impression is cartoonish it's the result of his doing.

He's parroting hypocritical partisan lines.
 

Related Topics

DNA inheritance - Question by Pauline Rendall
Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Family Tree Test (changes human history?) - Discussion by edgarblythe
Can babies be a crime scene? - Question by boomerang
It's alive! Artificial DNA controls life - Discussion by edgarblythe
native american dna - Question by hoop2live3
Human ancestry for idiots - Discussion by Gelisgesti
How the Human Got His Thumbs - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 09:24:17