STORY: "Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search," by reporter Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer, published by CNN on June 3, 2013.
GIST: In a 5-4 decision, the high court likens taking a DNA sample to fingerprinting an arrestee. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia says the ruling establishes a "terrifying principle." Civil liberties groups worry about errors by overwhelmed lab technicians........."The Supreme Court has ruled
criminal suspects can be subjected to a police DNA test after arrest --
before trial and conviction -- a privacy-versus-public-safety dispute
that could have wide-reaching implications in the rapidly evolving
technology surrounding criminal procedure. At issue in the ruling
Monday was whether taking genetic samples from someone held without a
warrant in criminal custody for "a serious offense" is an
unconstitutional "search." A 5-4 majority of the court concluded it is legitimate, and upheld a state law. "When officers make an
arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and
they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking
and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting
and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the majority wrote.........A divided Maryland Court
of Appeals later agreed with King, saying suspects under arrest enjoy a
higher level of privacy than a convicted felon, outweighing the state's
law enforcement interests. That court also said obtaining King's DNA
immediately after arrest was not necessary in identifying him, and that
the process was more personally invasive than standard fingerprinting. But the high court
decided in favor of the state. Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John
Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. The issue of citizen
privacy has been particularly acute since the 9/11 attacks. Federal and
state governments have stepped up surveillance of suspected terrorists
and their allies and of high-risk targets, like government buildings and
shopping malls. The current
conservative-majority court has generally been supportive of law
enforcement in recent search and privacy disputes, but not always. The
court last year ruled police could not place a GPS tracking device on a
drug suspect's car for several weeks without first obtaining a search
warrant. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority's reasoning established a "terrifying principle." "The court's opinion
barely mentions the crucial fact about this case: the search here was
entirely suspicionless. The police had no reason to believe King's DNA
would link him to any crime." Scalia added the state
law "manages to burden uniquely the sole group for whom the Fourth
Amendment's protections ought to be most jealously guarded: people who
are innocent of the state's accusations," describing of the legal
concept of innocent until proven guilty. He was supported by
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Scalia's
prior support of Fourth Amendment protections is well-documented, so
his siding with three more liberal members of the court was not
surprising.........Civil liberties groups worry inadequate testing by overwhelmed lab
technicians can lead to errors, such as the one that sent Dwayne Jackson
to prison for armed robbery. It was three years before a lab mistake
was noticed, and the Nevada man was freed as an innocent man."
Theentire story can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Dear reader: Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following developments relating to these issues.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
