View original postIts not invasive and it catches rapists and murderers. Where is the potential for abuse or harm here?
What happens to DNA samples for people that are later acquitted?
And why do you suddenly trust the government to properly care for / manage DNA samples when you don't trust it to do a single, solitary, good god-damn thing ELSE properly?
SCOTUS - Give the police your DNA!
- 03/06/2013 08:31:27 PM
930 Views
Good for Scalia. And the other three, of course.
- 03/06/2013 11:54:30 PM
594 Views
Breyer must have bumped his head the morning they wrote the decison! *NM*
- 04/06/2013 01:20:23 AM
218 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 08:50:19 AM
622 Views
Because it's a search which should be protected under the 4th Amendment.
- 04/06/2013 03:38:18 PM
590 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:05:27 PM
607 Views
Excepting fingerprints, those things are in plain sight, so not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- 10/08/2013 10:36:08 AM
485 Views
Re: Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:55:38 PM
711 Views
I dont really think it takes much care
- 06/06/2013 05:08:38 PM
664 Views
The harm is to presumption of innocence, by conviction through illegally obtained evidence.
- 10/08/2013 11:07:59 AM
618 Views
Don't know why it matters. DNA is on file. So what? Rape anybody lately? *NM*
- 04/06/2013 04:09:08 AM
266 Views
I don't have any issue with the decision; however, the possibility of abuse should be watched.
- 04/06/2013 03:11:02 PM
556 Views
I'm a lefty, and I LIKE this decision
- 11/06/2013 07:35:17 PM
587 Views
The contents of our homes are protected, but not the contents of our bodies?
- 10/08/2013 10:40:17 AM
510 Views
Scariest thing: I agreed with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Dick Cheney in the same WEEK. 
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
506 Views
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
506 Views