US Court mulls whether DNA swabs violate privacy

February 27, 2013

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether taking DNA swabs during an arrest violates privacy, in what one justice said was the court's "most important criminal procedure case" in decades.

The nine judges seemed split on the issue during the hearing to decide whether trumped the interest of solving crimes.

Alonzo Jay King was arrested in April 2009 in Maryland for acts of aggression. A saliva sample was taken and sent to a lab, as allowed under Maryland law, without a warrant and even before the suspect had been indicted.

A month after the arrest, the came back, linking King to a sample taken from the victim of an unsolved rape.

With that , King was convicted and received a life sentence—but he appealed, invoking the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

The Maryland appeals agreed with him, saying the Fourth Amendment forbade taking the DNA sample without his permission or a warrant. Maryland, backed by the federal government, then took the case to the nation's top court.

"This is the most important criminal procedure case this Court has had in decades," declared judge Samuel Alito.

"Why is this not fingerprinting of the 21st Century?" he asked, arguing that the procedure involves a very minimal intrusion for the suspect and that many murders and rapes could be solved using such evidence.

Michael Dreeben, a lawyer for the government, argued that "the state has a compelling interest in taking information from individuals arrested."

And Anthony Kennedy seemed inclined to agree that the justice system had "an interest in knowing whether the person committed other crimes."

His conservative colleague Antonin Scalia argued that "the Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way."

But Chief Justice John Roberts, also a conservative, expressed concern that allowing samples to be taken during arrests could lead to a domino effect in which they would be taken from "anybody pulled over for a traffic violation."

And progressive justice Elena Kagan agreed, saying: "Just being arrested doesn't mean you lose your privacy expectations."

But fellow progressive Stephen Breyer took the opposite view, saying "we are not talking about people who drive a car," but people arrested for "felonies."

The high court is expected to give its decision before the end of June.

Explore further: Court: Judges can demand warrant for cell locales

Related Stories

Court: Judges can demand warrant for cell locales

September 7, 2010

(AP) -- Judges have the right to require warrants before police get cell phone records that could suggest a customer's likely location, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday in a novel electronic privacy case.

High court to rule on TV indecency, GPS tracking

June 28, 2011

(AP) -- The Supreme Court has added a couple of high-profile constitutional challenges to its lineup of cases for next term: One looking at governmental regulation of television content and the other dealing with the authority ...

High court troubled by warrantless GPS tracking (Update)

November 8, 2011

The Supreme Court invoked visions of an all-seeing Big Brother and satellites watching us from above. Then things got personal Tuesday when the justices were told police could slap GPS devices on their cars and track their ...

Warrant needed for GPS tracking, high court says (Update)

January 23, 2012

(AP) -- In a rare defeat for law enforcement, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed on Monday to bar police from installing GPS technology to track suspects without first getting a judge's approval. The justices made clear ...

Recommended for you

Plant light sensors came from ancient algae

July 28, 2015

The light-sensing molecules that tell plants whether to germinate, when to flower and which direction to grow were inherited millions of years ago from ancient algae, finds a new study from Duke University.

Head and body lice read DNA differently

July 28, 2015

What makes head lice different from body lice had scientists scratching their heads as previous genetic studies failed to find any substantial differences between the two types of lice.

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2013
"Just being arrested doesn't mean you lose your privacy expectations."


Correct. The fourth amendment protects against just such unreasonable searches and seizures. Fingerprinting everyone who is arrested is a similar violation of the 4th amendment.

Such things are being done to people presumed innocent of any crime.

The fourth amendment even protects against blanket searches and seizures to someone convicted of a crime:

... and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation ...
trapezoid
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2013
Scalia argued that "the Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way."

Then it's doing its job.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.