82°F
Sponsored by

Supreme Court Upholds DNA Swabbing of People under Arrest

<span style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 25px; ">The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.</span>

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court's more liberal members -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- in dissenting.

The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest "for a serious offense" and when officers "bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody," does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches.

Under those specifications, the court said, "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."

For the full story:

Page: [[$index + 1]]
comments powered by Disqus

Poll

[[viewModel.Question]]

[[result.OptionText]] [[calculateVotePercent(result)]]%
[[settings.DelayedResultsMessage]]
Poll sponsored by