A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Supreme Court and DNA

Posted: Jun 3, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html

What are your opinions on this ruling? Is this constitutional or a 4th amendment violation?

;

I have never ONCE agreed with Antonin Scalia, - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
but I certainly agree with him on this!!

From the link you posted:

"In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority's reasoning established a "terrifying principle."

"The court's opinion barely mentions the crucial fact about this case: the search here was entirely suspicionless. The police had no reason to believe King's DNA would link him to any crime."

Scalia added the state law "manages to burden uniquely the sole group for whom the Fourth Amendment's protections ought to be most jealously guarded: people who are innocent of the state's accusations," describing of the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty.

He was supported by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Scalia's prior support of Fourth Amendment protections is well-documented, so his siding with three more liberal members of the court was not surprising.

I like it - bootstraps

[ In Reply To ..]
This is a great example of keeping up with the times in the application of law when interpreting the Constitution.

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (PDF) upholding DNA cheek swabs as part of the booking procedure for arrests supported by probable cause in serious offenses. The cheek swab, “is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” Kennedy wrote."

It's also a good crime deterrent and tool to solve cold cases.

Thanks for bringing this up :-)

Hey, bootstraps - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
How's it going? It's been a while since I got on here.

I completely agree that this is a good decision. Considering the number of crimes we deal with in America and how much of a difference DNA evidence can make. It doesn't just find the guilty, but exonerates the innocent. By identifying all the people who aren't suspects, the police will be more nimble in their investigations.

Hi :-) - bootstraps

[ In Reply To ..]
A big difference indeed. Gone also may be the days of coerced confessions in cases where DNA can play a role.

It's going quite well, thank you!

Taking a break from the Politics Board is for sure refreshing, and while I miss your contributions here, I know where to get my Fan fix ;-)

Not really about DNA, but I've been noticing that - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
police officers all over the country are acting more like storm troopers than police officers. They have beat homeless people to death; they tasered someone to death; they just recently were dragging a girl around their police room by her hair (charging her with "resisting arrest").

I used to be married to a police officer and had great respect for the police, but they are changing their behavior and attitude to the point where it's chilling.

I live in an apartment building, and my friend (a male) kept being harassed by some of the people here (including looking through his laundry and sniffing his underwear if he wasn't in the room at the time), they called the police on his van and claimed the registration date wasn't current and that the van wasn't running, etc.

He finally told them ALL to SHUT UP, and THEY reported HIM to the police for a typical CIVIL problem (not CRIMINAL), and the cop came to his door and threatened him with eviction. Fortunately, my friend knows his constitutional rights and wouldn't let the cop in without a warrant, though he tried to get in.

That cop had no business in this apartment building. The entire property is PRIVATE property, and the harassment of my friend by the police was like nothing I've ever seen before.

My friend isn't some sort of dirtbag that breaks the law. He's very law abiding, plus he's a DJ for a local radio station and has a rather large following in this town.

I just can't figure out what's going on with the police. They used to be nice guys where I come from, and now they're like storm troopers.

I agree that it's constitutional - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]

The entire ruling and reason for this ruling is in the link and after the ruling, is the reason for it in Maryland v. Alonzo King.

The following paragraphs sum it up:

Held: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and 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. Pp. 3-28.

The entire ruling and reason for this ruling is in the link and after the ruling, is the reason for it in Maryland v. Alonzo King.

The following paragraphs sum it up:

(a) DNA testing may "significantly improve both the criminal justice system and police investigative practices," District Attorney's Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U. S. 52, 55, by making it "possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty," id., at 62. Maryland's Act authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from, as relevant here, persons charged with violent crimes, including first-degree assault. A sample may not be added to a database before an individual is arraigned, and it must be destroyed if, e.g., he is not convicted. . . . .

There is plenty more in the ruling of the reasons why this is considered constitutional and the Maryland v. Alonzo King is definitely a plus since just going with fingerprints would not have helped convict him of not just one, but two serious offenses:

In 2003 a man concealing his face and armed with a gun broke into a woman's home in Salisbury, Maryland. He raped her. The police were unable to identify or apprehend the assailant based on any detailed description or other evidence they then had, but they did obtain from the victim a sample of the perpetrator's DNA.

In 2009 Alonzo King was arrested in Wicomico County, Maryland, and charged with first- and second-degree assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. . . .As part of a routine booking procedure for serious offenses, his DNA sample was taken by applying a cotton swab or filter paper--known as a buccal swab--to the inside of his cheeks. The DNA was found to match the DNA taken from the Salisbury rape victim. King was tried and convicted for the rape.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/06/politics/scotus-dna-arrests-ruling/index.html

Similar Messages:

Mar 26, 2012
Before the decision even comes down from the Supreme Court on Obama's health care law I have to admit I have no confidence in them. It's all political. Giving the election to bush over Gore and allowing corporations to fund elections makes me think the court is not bipartisan. When the highest court in the land is partisan I have no hope. I feel sad for our country. Do you trust them? ...

Apr 06, 2012
By Peter Ferrara Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added). President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare heal ...

Jan 27, 2011
Where is the outrage? Corruption at the highest levels--I hope they impeach this guy. Source: Los Angeles Times\"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife\'s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the fou ...

Apr 11, 2010
Ever since Barack Obama's election as president, there has been anticipation among scholars at the University of Chicago's Law School that one of their own could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court bench in the next few years.That anticipation was heightened late last week with news that Obama, who taught constitutional law at the school from 1992 to 2004, soon will be making his first Supreme Court pick.Almost every short list of possible nominees to succeed Justice David Souter inclu ...

Jun 26, 2013
A huge step in the right direction. The legal challenge to Doma was brought by New York resident Edith Windsor, 83. She was handed a tax bill of $363,000 (£236,000) when she inherited the estate of her spouse Thea Speyer - a levy she would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man. "Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Wednesday's ruling. "Under Doma, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, ...

Sep 17, 2013
In many states, police can rifle through your smart phone—even if you've just been arrested for not putting on your seat belt. —By Dana Liebelson | Tue Sep. 17, 2013 3:00 AM PDT 8 Rich Siegel/Flickr If you're like many Americans, your cell phone is overflowing with personal information—text messages, emails, photos of your friends and family, an organized history of who you've been calling, private notes, automatic logi ...

Jan 13, 2015
but apparently there is another attack in March to try to deny people the tax-credit subsidies offered by the law. ...

May 20, 2015
guts Obamacare. I don't think they will rule that way; but, if they do, there will be big trouble if all those people lose their insurance. ...

Mar 27, 2012
Lets hope they vote on the side of the law and vote it down. If they do the right thing and vote against it, my trust in them may rise, but unsure. Just unsure if they will do the right thing. My take on the health care is this. Those that want it should be able to get it. Those that don't should not be forced to buy a product we don't wish to purchase every month. And on top of that be told the product has to meet certain circumstances, whiich for m ...

Mar 26, 2012
There are so many good things about the Affordable Health Care Act. It's hard for me to understand why someone would even think about going without insurance. Cain and the TBs are full of hot air.Two years ago, thousands of members of the tea party descended on Capitol Hill to protest the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care law.On Saturday, just two days before the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law, hundreds of tea party supporters ...

Jul 25, 2014
Should Obamacare be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and should the SCOTUS actually decide to hear it, the 4 dissenters when the ACA was upheld by the court previously have already made clear in their dissent what they believed Congress' intent was in setting up the exchanges. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (joint dissenting opinion of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) "...because Congress thought that some States might decline federal fu ...

Nov 13, 2014
More than 800,000 Floridians would see their monthly insurance premiums rise, from an average of around $70 to an average of around $350, or roughly a factor of five. More than 600,000 people in Texas, about 325,000 in North Carolina, and another 275,000 in Georgia would see insurance premiums soar by similar amounts. Nationwide, more than 4 million people living in 37 states would be in situations like these. Most would have no way to pay the higher bills, forcing them to drop insurance covera ...

Oct 14, 2013
Adam H. Rosenzweig from the Washington University School of Law proposes a different approach to ending the debt ceiling crisis: Let the Supreme Court resolve it as a Constitutional matter. What should happen when Congress and the President find themselves in a fiscal policy showdown resulting in a Constitutional violation? This question has risen to the fore in light of the recent political showdowns over the so-called “debt ceiling” crisis. Some scholars have argued that there ar ...

May 09, 2014
In this case, a family sued on the grounds that having the Pledge Allegiance recited in school everyday discriminated against their children because they did not follow/worship the Christian God. While their children (and all U.S. children) are free to not recite it, it was argued that non-pledgers were discriminated against, treated as un-American, and un-patriotic, and ridiculed as such. Additionally, even if they wanted to demonstrate their patriotism, these students could not because "Under ...

Jan 26, 2017
This is the strangest vaccine story I have ever come across. Several scientists proved successfully in Germany that measles is NOT caused by a virus. The case was heard before the German Federal Supreme Court (equivalent of our U.S. SupremeCourt). The plaintiff was a biologist, and he was awarded monetary damages. Reseachers in the past decades committed a critical mistake: They used no controls. As a result, components of regular cells were misidentified as vira ...

Feb 17, 2016
he would shift the balance of the court. What hypocrites they are and they get away with it. Apparently Harry Reid has forgotten his own role in trying to do so. Payback is a ....... Just two years ago Harry Reid went for the nuclear option eliminated the filibuster rule of 60-40 votes required to override one so he could pack the super-important DC Circuit Court with extreme leftist. The cool thing about having no moral values and no accountability is that you can lie without a guilty ...

Apr 29, 2010
By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 29, 2010 A splintered Supreme Court displayed its deep divisions over the separation of church and state Wednesday, with the court's prevailing conservatives signaling a broader openness to the idea that the Constitution does not require the removal of religious symbols from public land. A 5 to 4 decision by the court overturns a federal judge's objection to a white cross erected more than 75 years ago on a ...

Jun 10, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/supreme-courts-majority-s_n_607714.html ...

Aug 19, 2016
Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros’ stated vehicle for progressive social change, orchestrated a well-funded attempt to secure a desired outcome in a U.S. Supreme Court case on illegal immigration enforcement, according to a newly discovered memo between the organization’s top U.S. officials and board members. Members of the advisory board include Soros family members, left-wing activists, Ivy League professors and columnists for The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. The ...

Aug 19, 2013
"the state wants to “wave a magic wand” and read the broad anti-sodomy law as protecting minors. But the law “does not mention the word ‘minor,’ " From The Washington Post The High Court It is not the headline that Ken Cuccinelli II would have written, of course. But considering the flak Virginia’s attorney general has received for pressing his defense of the commonwealth’s “crimes against nature” law to the Supreme Court, C ...

Mar 25, 2014
Maybe there is hope after all... ...

Nov 18, 2014
On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court said it would entertain the latest legal assault on President Obama’s health-reform program. Leading liberal analysts worry—reasonably—that the justices will cripple Obamacare. Unfortunately, these defenders of the program are making their case by preemptively accusing right-leaning members of the high court of bad faith and rank partisanship. Paul Krugman of Princeton and the New York Times has has called the argument that a sy ...

Apr 20, 2015
A big victory for voting rights and against gerrymandering of voting districts! ...

Jan 21, 2010
Well, back to square 1. Wonder how many judges are in the pockets of corporations? Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns Video High court rolls back campaign spending limits The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns. » LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER ...

Jun 11, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit.The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers alleg ...

Jul 01, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/critics-say-supreme-courts-proposition-8-ruling-ta/ ...

Feb 23, 2016
Gotta love that man! LOL ...

Jan 09, 2015
January 8, 2015: As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could prove to be a fatal blow against the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, a new study has concluded that the consequences of striking down the law's subsidies for low- and middle-income individuals will result in a sharp drop in the number of Americans with health insurance, as well as a steep rise in premiums. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/study- ...

Jan 22, 2010
By Ron BrynaertThursday, January 21st, 2010 -- 12:17 pm Republicans say 'freedom won,' liberal jokes real winner is Satan Update: Obama vows 'forceful response' The US Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a 20-year ruling which had set limits on campaign financing by US businesses, and critics, including nonpartisan watchdogs and Congressional Democrats, are up in arms about the decision, which most had feared for a long time. Meanwhile, aside from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), ...

Jul 23, 2016
The Supreme Court of Virginia on Friday struck down Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring voting rights to 206,000 felons, dealing a severe blow to what the governor has touted as one of his proudest achievements in office. In a 4-3 ruling, the court declared McAuliffe’s order unconstitutional, saying it amounts to a unilateral rewrite and suspension of the state’s policy... The court majority found that McAuliffe did indeed overstep his authority. “Never before hav ...