I've been thinking a bit about the Maryland v. King decision by SCOTUS.
That decision said it was okay for the police to take a DNA sample from everyone they arrest, like they do with fingerprints.
I'm still unsure how I feel about it.
And then today I came across this: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/06/07/us/07reuters-usa-mississippi-babies.html?smid=re-share&_r=0
Mississippi will require doctors to collect umbilical cord blood from babies born to some young mothers, under a new law intended to identify statutory rapists and reduce the state's rate of teenage pregnancy, the highest in the country.
Samples will be stored at the state medical examiner's office for testing in the event that police believe the girl was the victim of statutory rape. But they will not automatically be entered into the state's criminal DNA database.
Governor Phil Bryant said, "As governor, I am serious about confronting and reducing teen pregnancy in Mississippi. Unfortunately, part of this epidemic is driven by sexual offenders who prey on young girls. This measure provides law enforcement with another tool to help identify these men and bring them to justice."
"The argument is that the DNA is abandoned or about to be abandoned as medical waste, and a person doesn't have constitutional privacy over trash,"
Are babies now a crime scene?
Is this Constitutional?
It all seems very much like a fishing expedition to me: arrest someone for something, get their DNA, see what else they might have been up to over the years.
And if you can't get their DNA, get their kid's DNA.
What do you think about all of this?