Daily Archives: February 26, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a case that spotlights the growing use of genetic data by law enforcement agencies, the Supreme Court wrestled on Tuesday with the question of when a DNA sample may be taken from a suspect.

The nine justices peppered lawyers for both sides with tough questions during oral argument as they sought to determine what kind of limits should be put on the right of the government to take samples.

Police and prosecutors in Maryland suffered a major setback when the state's Court of Appeals ruled in April 2012 that Alonzo King's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated when he was required to provide his DNA upon being arrested.

Under Maryland law, samples can be taken from anyone arrested for a serious offense without police needing to get a warrant first. Police can then submit those samples to a national database to see if the suspect is linked with any other crimes.

The case argued on Tuesday focuses purely on samples taken without a warrant after a suspect is arrested and charged with a crime, but not convicted of it. Samples taken from convicted felons are routinely submitted to the national database. That practice is not an issue in the case.

The sample King gave after a 2009 arrest in Wicomico County on two assault charges linked him to a 2003 rape. He was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of the rape and was convicted of one count of misdemeanor assault on the 2009 charges.

His lawyers argue that the sample taken in the assault arrest should not have been used to link him to the rape.

DIVIDED COURT

During the argument, Justice Samuel Alito, a former U.S. attorney, gave the most strident support for the government's right to take DNA.

"I think this is the most important criminal procedure case this court has heard for decades," he said.

Read more:
Police use of DNA samples at issue in Supreme Court case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a case that spotlights the growing use of genetic data by law enforcement agencies, the Supreme Court will consider on Tuesday when a DNA sample may be taken from a suspect.

Police and prosecutors in Maryland suffered a major setback when the state's court of appeals ruled in April 2012 that Alonzo King's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated when he was required to provide his DNA upon being arrested.

Under Maryland law, samples can be taken from anyone arrested for a serious offense without police needing to get a warrant first. Police can then submit those samples to a national database to see if the suspect is linked with any other crimes.

The case being argued Tuesday focuses purely on samples taken after a suspect is arrested and charged with a crime, but not convicted of it. Samples taken from convicted felons are routinely submitted to the national database. That practice is not an issue in the case.

The sample King gave after a 2009 arrest in Wicomico County on two assault charges linked him to a 2003 rape. He was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of the rape and was convicted of one count of misdemeanor assault on the 2009 charges.

His lawyers argue that the sample taken in the assault arrest should not have been used to link him to the rape.

The nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Maryland court ruling during a one-hour oral argument.

King has received full-throated support from civil liberties groups, which are concerned that the government has too few constraints in collecting DNA. At a minimum, police should be required to get a warrant, based on what lawyers call "individualized suspicion," that links a suspect to a particular crime, King's backers say. There was nothing linking King to the rape until after his DNA was taken and submitted to the database.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, a Democrat, said in an interview that the state court decision "didn't make a whole lot of sense to us." He described the law enforcement community in Maryland as being "apoplectic" when the ruling came out.

"The importance of DNA to law enforcement cannot and should not be lost on the justices," Gansler said.

Go here to read the rest:
DNA a civil rights issue in Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether Marylands decision to collect DNA samples from people arrested for serious crimes represents an unconstitutional invasion of privacy or a crime-solving breakthrough with the potential to be the fingerprinting of the 21st century.

Either way, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, the case is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades.

In this photo taken Oct. 8, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington.

More from PostPolitics

Aaron Blake

THE FIX | Republicans didn't succeed, but that doesn't mean the whole exercise was a bust.

Glenn Kessler

FACT CHECKER | All facts and figures uttered by politicians about the cuts should be viewed with skepticism.

Chris Cillizza

THE FIX | The party is deeply divided, with many who describe themselves as Republicans holding decidedly negative opinions about their side.

View original post here:
Supreme Court weighs DNA ‘fingerprinting’

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court offered a surprising amount of concern Tuesday about states laws allowing police to collect a DNA sample of anyone arrested -- but not yet convicted -- of serious crimes.

A ruling soon on the privacy versus public safety question could have wide-reaching implications in the rapidly evolving technology surrounding criminal procedure.

Law enforcement lauds genetic testing's potential as the "gold standard" of reliable evidence gathering, especially to solve "cold cases" involving violent offenders.

But privacy rights groups counter the state's "trust us" promise not to abuse the technology does not ease their concerns that someone's biological makeup could soon be applied for a variety of non-criminal purposes.

Privacy vs. prosecution: DNA testing gets high court review

The justices raised a host of hypotheticals in their spirited oral arguments, laying out two sharply divided scenarios.

"There is something inherently dangerous about DNA collection that is not the same as fingerprinting," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "How far do we let the state go each time it has some form of custody over you in schools, in workplaces, wherever else the state has control over your person?"

"This is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy," said Justice Samuel Alito. "Why isn't this the fingerprinting of the 21st century? What is the difference?"

Twenty-six states and the federal government allow genetic swabs to be taken after a felony arrest and without a warrant.

Visit link:
DNA tests after arrest? Some justices not so sure

The US Supreme Court heard argument Tuesday in a case testing whether government officials can routinely collect a persons DNA at the time he or she is arrested and then use that DNA sample to try to link the individual to unsolved crimes.

At issue in the case, Maryland v. King (12-207), is whether taking a DNA sample from an arrestee without first obtaining a court-authorized warrant is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

DNA has become an essential law-enforcement tool, not just in its ability to conclusively identify an individual but, more important, through its ability to conclusively link suspects to cold cases.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

In effect, DNA is becoming in the 21st century what fingerprinting was to the 20th except better.

But theres a problem. Unlike a fingerprint, DNA material contains a plethora of highly personal information bound within a persons genetic code. When the government seizes DNA material, it is taking control of more than just the ability to isolate an identifying pattern unique to one individual. With advances in genetic science, DNA might someday reveal information about an individuals susceptibility to future diseases and perhaps even personality traits, scientists say.

Several justices expressed concern that seizing a DNA sample from an individual to solve cold cases is a search under the Fourth Amendment. What justifies the state taking such action without a warrant?, they wanted to know.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

Katherine Winfree, Marylands chief deputy attorney general, told the justices that the state did not need to obtain a warrant to collect DNA samples from arrestees because people in police custody have already surrendered a substantial amount of their liberty and privacy.

That cant quite be right, Justice Elena Kagan countered. Assume youve been arrested for something; the state doesnt have a right to go search your house for evidence of unrelated crimes.

Visit link:
Can police collect DNA when someone is arrested? Supreme Court to decide

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled with what one of the justices called its most important criminal procedure case in decades, whether to let police take DNA without a warrant from those arrested in hopes of using it to solve old cases.

Justices seemed conflicted over whether police have a right to take genetic information from people who have only been arrested without getting a judge's approval first, or if the government's interest in solving cold cases trumped the immediate privacy rights of those under police suspicion of other crimes.

One justice seemed to make clear what he thought. "I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades," said Justice Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor.

"This is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy," Alito said later. "Why isn't this the fingerprinting of the 21st century? What is the difference? If it was permissible, and it's been assumed to be so for decades, that it is permissible to fingerprint anybody who's booked, why is it not permissible to take a DNA sample from anybody who is arrested?"

But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned how far the government can go if they decide that the police have an interest in people's DNA to help solve cases, with Roberts noting that it wouldn't take much for police to add DNA swabs to traffic stops. "Police officers who give Breathalyzer tests, they can also take a Q-tip or whatever and get a DNA sample, right?" Roberts said.

"It could be any arrestee, no matter how minor the offense," Kagan said. "It could be just any old person in the street. Why don't we do this for everybody who comes in for a driver's license because it's very effective?"

Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the court's blessing. But now 28 states and the federal government now also take samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven.

According to court documents, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System or CODIS a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of those arrested.

In the case before the court, a 53-year-old woman was raped and robbed but no one was arrested. Almost six years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with felony second-degree assault. Taking advantage of a Maryland law that allowed warrantless DNA tests following some felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King's DNA, which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison.

King eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault from his arrest, a crime for which Maryland cannot take warrantless DNA samples. The state courts said it violated King's rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone.

Read the original post:
Court Appears Conflicted Over DNA Sampling Issue