DNA swabbing by police passes Supreme Court

[Kasierith]

So, I happened to hear about this today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...rimes/2116453/ . This could very likely be the most important supreme court decision on legal procedures that will occur in our lifetimes; the ability of the police to treat basic DNA testing in the same manner of fingerprints in the process of enforcing the law.

Seeing as the court itself was deeply divided on the issue, with a 5-4 in favor of the procedure, what do people think of this? Is DNA swabbing invasive in such a way that it infringes on rights to privacy, and is the road to more invasive techniques in the future? Or is this problem negligible in the face of the immense benefits that can come of testing for DNA on an individual who has not been convicted of a previous crime?

[Wildtree]

A cotton stick against the cheek isn't more invasive than getting your fingertips dirty.
I see no problem really. It's a natural progress. Fingerprints have never been 100% reliable anyway.

[Reg]

I've never been arrested, so I don't exactly know how it works. If they can take your fingerprints when you are arrested and prior to conviction, then I don't have a problem with DNA.

[Daerio]

I don't think it's invasive in the sense that they're anally probing you for DNA.

I do think it can be invasive in the sense that, if the police start gathering a large DNA database for every crime committed - I don't know how long they can track DNA when a crime has been committed, but for instance:

If I visit someone's home, and a strand of my hair or partial fingerprint (aka DNA) is left at their house, and they are later murdered - weeks later, or whatever - and the police for whatever reason have my DNA on file, perhaps for committing no crime at all...

That's circumstantial evidence at best obviously, but how convincing will that evidence be to a jury if such a flimsy case were to go to trial? Judges would usually not allow such a case to get that far if that were the only evidence, but worse injustices have occurred.

---------- Post added 2013-06-03 at 11:51 PM ----------

Also, tell me what prevents them from collecting a DNA sample from everyone? Stopped for speeding? DNA swab. I can see this being problematic.

[YuneKirby]

Like others have said, it's not that different from fingerprinting. From that perspective, I don't think it's that bad, though it's worth some thought.

Personally, I think a federal judge ruling that that the Google must turn user information over to the FBI *without a warrant* is a lot more invasive.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...t-nsl-demands/

[THE Bigzoman]

Like others have said, it's not that different from fingerprinting. From that perspective, I don't think it's that bad, though it's worth some thought.

Personally, I think a federal judge ruling that that the Google must turn user information over to the FBI *without a warrant* is a lot more invasive.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...t-nsl-demands/

DNA contains more then fingerprints ever could. It's a privacy issue for me. And I don't trust the police with my genetic information.

Depending on who also has access to this database, this could change a lot of police (My most feared being health insurance.)

[Reg]

I don't think it's invasive in the sense that they're anally probing you for DNA.

I do think it can be invasive in the sense that, if the police start gathering a large DNA database for every crime committed - I don't know how long they can track DNA when a crime has been committed, but for instance:

If I visit someone's home, and a strand of my hair or partial fingerprint (aka DNA) is left at their house, and they are later murdered - weeks later, or whatever - and the police for whatever reason have my DNA on file, perhaps for committing no crime at all...

That's circumstantial evidence at best obviously, but how convincing will that evidence be to a jury if such a flimsy case were to go to trial? Judges would usually not allow such a case to get that far if that were the only evidence, but worse injustices have occurred.

---------- Post added 2013-06-03 at 11:51 PM ----------

Also, tell me what prevents them from collecting a DNA sample from everyone? Stopped for speeding? DNA swab. I can see this being problematic.

It's the same way that a fingerprint can be somewhere in the house for a long time, so it's not really different. Fingerprints can pretty much last forever until wiped or cleaned away, same as DNA.

[Daerio]

Also, this can be considered related to medical information privacy. Our DNA can have quite a lot to say about our medical conditions. This means the police have free access to that as well, which can have several more consequences.

Our medical information is supposed to be private right now, but honestly, this is pretty much a farse anyway.

---------- Post added 2013-06-03 at 11:59 PM ----------

It's the same way that a fingerprint can be somewhere in the house for a long time, so it's not really different. Fingerprints can pretty much last forever until wiped or cleaned away, same as DNA.

A stray hair on the carpet cannot be accidentally wiped away, only vacuumed up. Ever seen Gattaca? (though you don't have to to forsee how much this could affect)

[Flatspriest]

This just opens the door to the police arresting anyone they feel like just to get a DNA sample. I personally think that they should make it mandatory that the police show cause prior to being able to arrest someone.

[YuneKirby]

DNA contains more then fingerprints ever could. It's a privacy issue for me. And I don't trust the police with my genetic information.

Depending on who also has access to this database, this could change a lot of police (My most feared being health insurance.)

That's a good point. I guess if they just use the DNA to prove someone's presence at the scene of a crime or on a murder weapon, I don't mind. But if they start poking at genes and trying to make arguments that someone must have committed a crime because they're genetically pre-dispositioned to it, then that would be pretty bad.

[Kasierith]

DNA contains more then fingerprints ever could. It's a privacy issue for me. And I don't trust the police with my genetic information.

Depending on who also has access to this database, this could change a lot of police (My most feared being health insurance.)

The DNA used in police procedures is pretty much matching them up; cutting certain parts of the chain and seeing if they're the same length. You don't get genetic information from that.

[Reg]

That's a good point. I guess if they just use the DNA to prove someone's presence at the scene of a crime or on a murder weapon, I don't mind. But if they start poking at genes and trying to make arguments that someone must have committed a crime because they're genetically pre-dispositioned to it, then that would be pretty bad.

But what would be an example of this? A string of crimes committed against men with fabulous hair, so they comb through people with genetics that point to male pattern baldness?

And yes, pun intended...

[THE Bigzoman]

The DNA used in police procedures is pretty much matching them up; cutting certain parts of the chain and seeing if they're the same length. You don't get genetic information from that.

I forgot about when I posted this when I first heard about it being heard by the justices.

We've been over this conversation. (I forgot)

[starlord]

people shit dna all over the place, its not some special secret thing. i support this because it will help solve crimes.

[Daerio]

But what would be an example of this? A string of crimes committed against men with fabulous hair, so they comb through people with genetics that point to male pattern baldness?

And yes, pun intended...

Or arresting people with an extra Y chromosome.

[drwelfare]

This just opens the door to the police arresting anyone they feel like just to get a DNA sample. I personally think that they should make it mandatory that the police show cause prior to being able to arrest someone.

It also brings up questions
How long are these records kept if your released and not charged?
Will it be entered and ran through a database where it could match up from previous cases

[DarkTZeratul]

It also brings up questions
How long are these records kept if your released and not charged?
Will it be entered and ran through a database where it could match up from previous cases

Presumably they'd go into the database, just as with fingerprints. Bear in mind, such a database could theoretically be used to identify your corpse if need-be, just as with fingerprints.

[Puremallace]

This case is literally the worst possible way to defend against making this lawful. This guy was busted for a rape because they got his DNA for another crime. This case is the poster child for why we need this. Didn't we go through this same discussion when they started keeping finger print records.

[Masark]

I see no problem really.

I do. It's an end run around warrants. Rather than bothering with getting a warrant, they can just arrest you on trumped up charges that will get tossed the second a judge sees them, but they can collect your DNA in the process and keep it in their records forever.

Didn't we go through this same discussion when they started keeping finger print records.

Yes. And prior to the war on civil rights terror, if you were found not guilty or the charges got tossed, the record of your fingerprints that got taken during processing from the arrest got removed from the records.

[DarkTZeratul]

I do. It's an end run around warrants. Rather than bothering with getting a warrant, they can just arrest you on trumped up charges that will get tossed the second a judge sees them, but they can collect your DNA in the process and keep it in their records forever.

They could theoretically already do that to get your fingerprints in their records forever. How is this different?