Excepting fingerprints, those things are in plain sight, so not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Joel Send a noteboard - 10/08/2013 10:36:08 AM
View original post
When one is arrested, they take a physical description, photos, and fingerprints. Why not DNA?
When one is arrested, they take a physical description, photos, and fingerprints. Why not DNA?
~Jeordam
And to answer urzas question, yes, I do object equally to taking fingerprints or DNA from SUSPECTS. Convict them of a crime and it is a different story, since convicted criminals do lose some (though not all) rights, but until/unless convicted of something via LEGALLY obtained evidence there is this thing called "presumption of innocence" that prohibits fishing trips. I mean, Hell, why not just arrest everyone for suspicion of anything now, take their DNA, release them if "proven innocent," and then have the whole countrys DNA on file. Henceforth police will be able to solve any and all crimes if they can just find some of the perpetrators DNA, because they can instantly match it with the database. I feel safer already.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
SCOTUS - Give the police your DNA!
03/06/2013 08:31:27 PM
- 857 Views
Good for Scalia. And the other three, of course.
03/06/2013 11:54:30 PM
- 530 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
- 531 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
- 418 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
- 591 Views
The harm is to presumption of innocence, by conviction through illegally obtained evidence.
10/08/2013 11:07:59 AM
- 550 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
- 492 Views
I'm a lefty, and I LIKE this decision
11/06/2013 07:35:17 PM
- 521 Views
The contents of our homes are protected, but not the contents of our bodies?
10/08/2013 10:40:17 AM
- 444 Views
Scariest thing: I agreed with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Dick Cheney in the same WEEK.
10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
- 440 Views