View original post
There are lots of procedures that are efficacious in capturing criminals, but efficacy doesn't determine morality or constitutionality.
There are lots of procedures that are efficacious in capturing criminals, but efficacy doesn't determine morality or constitutionality.
But were not suggesting interrogating them with the strappado here the balance has to be against invasiveness, and potential for harm or abuse.
We do finger printing. How do you see this as different from that? Or do you think we shouldn't do that either
SCOTUS - Give the police your DNA!
- 03/06/2013 08:31:27 PM
856 Views
Good for Scalia. And the other three, of course.
- 03/06/2013 11:54:30 PM
527 Views
Breyer must have bumped his head the morning they wrote the decison! *NM*
- 04/06/2013 01:20:23 AM
195 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 08:50:19 AM
555 Views
Because it's a search which should be protected under the 4th Amendment.
- 04/06/2013 03:38:18 PM
530 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:05:27 PM
546 Views
Excepting fingerprints, those things are in plain sight, so not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- 10/08/2013 10:36:08 AM
416 Views
Well no...
- 06/06/2013 05:13:43 PM
513 Views
Re: Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:55:38 PM
639 Views
I dont really think it takes much care
- 06/06/2013 05:08:38 PM
590 Views
The harm is to presumption of innocence, by conviction through illegally obtained evidence.
- 10/08/2013 11:07:59 AM
549 Views
Don't know why it matters. DNA is on file. So what? Rape anybody lately? *NM*
- 04/06/2013 04:09:08 AM
243 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
490 Views
I'm a lefty, and I LIKE this decision
- 11/06/2013 07:35:17 PM
520 Views
The contents of our homes are protected, but not the contents of our bodies?
- 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. 
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
439 Views
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
439 Views