Active Users:1174 Time:22/11/2024 02:43:58 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
I don't have any issue with the decision; however, the possibility of abuse should be watched. HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 04/06/2013 03:11:02 PM

View original post
Interesting split decision with Scalia siding with the super-libs.

situation
The police are trying to solve a rape crime and have a suspect, but not enough evidence to get a warrant.

solution
arrest the suspect for failing to properly stop at an intersection (yes they can actually arrest you and book you for that instead of just issuing you a citation) and get their DNA sample. Now the government has your DNA on file forever even if you were innocent.

Yeah, if you never violate the law you have noting to worry about; however, that is not how our judicial system is supposed to be. The whole "if you are innocent you have nothing to fear" takes a Constitutional nose dive when taken to its logical extreme of "why not just DNA sample every newborn?"

Like I said, I don't have an objection to this specific ruling, but it could become troublesome if it is stretched any further(as SCOTUS rulings often are).

Reply to message
SCOTUS - Give the police your DNA! Anonymous2000 - 03/06/2013 08:31:27 PM 856 Views
Good for Scalia. And the other three, of course. Ghavrel - 03/06/2013 11:54:30 PM 527 Views
Breyer must have bumped his head the morning they wrote the decison! *NM* Anonymous2000 - 04/06/2013 01:20:23 AM 195 Views
Why? Urza - 04/06/2013 08:50:19 AM 555 Views
Because it's a search which should be protected under the 4th Amendment. Ghavrel - 04/06/2013 03:38:18 PM 530 Views
Why? Jeordam - 04/06/2013 09:05:27 PM 546 Views
Excepting fingerprints, those things are in plain sight, so not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Joel - 10/08/2013 10:36:08 AM 416 Views
Well no... Urza - 06/06/2013 05:13:43 PM 513 Views
Re: Why? Macharius - 04/06/2013 09:55:38 PM 639 Views
I dont really think it takes much care Urza - 06/06/2013 05:08:38 PM 590 Views
It isn't the immediate harm, but the potential for abuse. HyogaRott - 06/06/2013 06:17:58 PM 511 Views
The harm is to presumption of innocence, by conviction through illegally obtained evidence. Joel - 10/08/2013 11:07:59 AM 550 Views
Re: Why? imlad - 11/06/2013 07:43:07 PM 510 Views
Don't know why it matters. DNA is on file. So what? Rape anybody lately? *NM* Nighthawk - 04/06/2013 04:09:08 AM 243 Views
Hey man, with your DNA, the government can clone you man..... Anonymous2000 - 04/06/2013 01:03:34 PM 483 Views
I don't have any issue with the decision; however, the possibility of abuse should be watched. HyogaRott - 04/06/2013 03:11:02 PM 491 Views
I'm a lefty, and I LIKE this decision imlad - 11/06/2013 07:35:17 PM 520 Views
The contents of our homes are protected, but not the contents of our bodies? Joel - 10/08/2013 10:40:17 AM 442 Views
Scariest thing: I agreed with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Dick Cheney in the same WEEK. Joel - 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM 439 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes