US Supreme Court's Samuel A Alito called it the "most important criminal procedure case" in "decades". The basic question is whether taking DNA swabs from arrested accused and matching them against a data base of unsolved crimes constitutional or not. As I said yesterday, it is likely to be constitutional.
The government's lawyers have come up with an interesting argument. They say having a DNA test can have a positive impact on how bails are decided by the courts. I think this argument holds a lot of water. As one of the lawyers for the government said - this is the finger printing for the 21st century "only better".
Still one may be a little concerned at the reports of what went down in the court room. Katherine Winfree, the Chief Deputy Attorney General of Baltimore began her submissions by reciting the number of convictions that have been made possible because of DNA sampling. Justice Scalia's heavily sarcastic comment "a lot more convictions would be possible if there was no fourth amendment" however set the tone for the criticism from the bench.
Winfree's argument that those who had been arrested had given up a substantial amount of liberty was a valid argument but it prompted a scathing remark from Justice Elena Kagan who said that this would mean anyone showing up for a driving license may be subject to DNA testing.
There is going to be a lot of back and forth of this kind. However, I feel that ultimately the Supreme Court will rule that DNA testing of those arrested in serious crimes does not violate the protections of the fourth amendment. And that is the way it should be.
The government's lawyers have come up with an interesting argument. They say having a DNA test can have a positive impact on how bails are decided by the courts. I think this argument holds a lot of water. As one of the lawyers for the government said - this is the finger printing for the 21st century "only better".
Still one may be a little concerned at the reports of what went down in the court room. Katherine Winfree, the Chief Deputy Attorney General of Baltimore began her submissions by reciting the number of convictions that have been made possible because of DNA sampling. Justice Scalia's heavily sarcastic comment "a lot more convictions would be possible if there was no fourth amendment" however set the tone for the criticism from the bench.
Winfree's argument that those who had been arrested had given up a substantial amount of liberty was a valid argument but it prompted a scathing remark from Justice Elena Kagan who said that this would mean anyone showing up for a driving license may be subject to DNA testing.
There is going to be a lot of back and forth of this kind. However, I feel that ultimately the Supreme Court will rule that DNA testing of those arrested in serious crimes does not violate the protections of the fourth amendment. And that is the way it should be.
“this is
the most important criminal procedure case this Court has had in
decades,” - See more at:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/argument-recap-does-crime-solving-trump-privacy/#sthash.z6kF7kZI.dpuf
“this is
the most important criminal procedure case this Court has had in
decades,” - See more at:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/argument-recap-does-crime-solving-trump-privacy/#sthash.z6kF7kZI.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be respectful and you shall be heard.