Adam Liptak at the New York Times recently discussed a crucial case currently before
the U.S. Supreme Court and how the impact of the decision could be felt across
police stations and in court rooms across the country for years to come. The
justices appeared to be aware of just how important the case was, with Justice
Alito saying that he though it was possibly “the most important criminal
procedure case that this court has heard in decades.”
The case deals with whether
police are allowed to take DNA samples from people who have been arrested. The
case began after a suspect in Maryland, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., was arrested on
assault charges back in 2009. A sample of King’s DNA was taken by swabbing his
cheek at the time of his arrest, but prior to any conviction, and it later
matched evidence from a rape that took place several years prior. King was
eventually convicted for the rape and appealed the case to the Maryland Court
of Appeals which agreed that taking DNA from those arrested but not yet
convicted violates the Fourth Amendment.
While it may be true the DNA
collection process is valuable to police departments and has helped nabbed
criminals, that does not mean it should be permitted, a point aptly made by
Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia, in responding to a claim that the DNA evidence
helped obtain 42 convictions in Maryland, said it was great news and he thought
if the police conducted a bunch of other unreasonable searches and seizures
they might get even more. He made clear that he thought the effectiveness of
the program proved nothing. In an odd alliance, Justice Ginsburg voiced her
agreement that the DNA testing practice might be problematic under the Fourth
Amendment which requires a warrant before police can conduct a search.
The justices never even discussed
the issue of collecting DNA from suspects who had already been convicted of
crimes, instead the issue was solely over what the Fourth Amendment might say
regarding those suspects who have only been arrested. Justice Roberts said that
while Maryland’s law limits the DNA samples to those arrested for serious
crimes, there was nothing preventing the law from siding down a slippery slope,
perhaps authorizing such DNA searches for everyone pulled over for speeding.
Playing a good devil’s advocate, Roberts also said he wondered about the
expectation of privacy in DNA when it can be so easily obtained. For instance,
Roberts said that simply taking a sip of water leaves behind a wealth of
private information.
Alito said that the technology at
issue is potentially hugely important and could be used to solve a multitude of
murders, rapes and other heinous crimes. He appeared to see the value of it, asking,
“Why isn’t this the fingerprinting of the 21st century?” This issue seemed
to be the focus of oral arguments, with King’s attorneys saying that DNA and
fingerprints differ in that fingerprints are used almost solely to identify
people while DNA is used to solve cold cases. We’ll have to wait a while to
hear what the justices think.
Read:
“Justices
Wrestle Over Allowing DNA Sampling at Time of Arrest,”
by Adam Liptak, published at NYTimes.com.
Earlier:
No comments:
Post a Comment