Tags: supreme | court | dna | decision

Supreme Court Says Police Can Take DNA Samples upon Arrest

Monday, 03 Jun 2013 12:04 PM

 

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
In a major victory for law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police can take a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested and charged but not convicted of a crime.

By a 5-4 vote the court reversed a decision last April by Maryland's highest court that overturned the 2010 conviction and life sentence of Alonzo Jay King for a rape committed seven years earlier.

The court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, handed a victory to the state of Maryland by saying taking of DNA samples was similar to taking fingerprints

DNA samples can be taken if police have probable cause to detain a suspect facing charges relating to a serious offense, Kennedy said.

Taking a sample using a swab of the cheek is "like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure," Kennedy said.

King's right under the U.S. Constitutional Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had therefore not been violated, he added.

Like fingerprints, DNA is used for identification, and is not by itself evidence of a crime, Kennedy said. There is a legitimate government interest in knowing the identity of the person arrested, he added.

Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three liberal justices in dissenting from the decision.

The Maryland court had concluded that King's Fourth Amendment rights were 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. Police can then submit those samples to a national database to see if the suspect is linked with any other crimes.

Monday's ruling will leave that law and others like it around the nation intact.

The case focused 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 and that practice was not an issue in the case.

Every other state in the country, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, signed on to a brief in support of Maryland's position.

The case is Maryland v. King, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 207.

© 2014 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Vikings Bring Back Peterson Despite Child Abuse Charge

Tuesday, 16 Sep 2014 06:57 AM

Adrian Peterson was back at Minnesota Vikings headquarters on Monday, and the first thing fullback Jerome Felton did whe . . .

Rutgers Professor: Guest Workers Are Stealing High-Tech Jobs

Tuesday, 16 Sep 2014 06:51 AM

Will borrowed workers make up the workforce of the future in the United States? One sociologist and professor is suggest . . .

Northern California Wildfire Burns 100 Homes

Monday, 15 Sep 2014 22:38 PM

A fire driven by fierce winds raced through the small town of Weed, Calif., near the Oregon border on Monday, burning a  . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved