Exploring the legal complexities of DNA collection from arrestees in Maryland v. King case. Analyzing dissenting opinion by Scalia and concerns over privacy rights. Debating DNA collection without warrants and ethical implications. Scrutinizing suspicionless searches and impact of DNA swabbing laws on privacy rights. Discussing DNA database checks and upcoming topic hints.
The Supreme Court permitted DNA collection from arrested individuals for identification purposes, disregarding the lack of suspicion for unrelated crimes.
Justice Scalia's dissent highlighted the unconstitutional nature of suspicionless DNA searches and the infringement on privacy rights.
Deep dives
Overview of Maryland v. King Case
In this 2013 case, a man's DNA was collected after being arrested for one crime, which later led to a match for another crime. Despite the argument that it violated the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled it permissible to take DNA from arrested individuals even if not convicted. The court emphasized DNA collection as part of the arrestee identification process, overlooking the lack of suspicion in searching for unrelated crimes.
Legality of DNA Collection from Arrestees
Maryland passed a law allowing DNA collection from certain arrestees, with Alonzo King's case illustrating its application. King's attempt to suppress DNA evidence under the Fourth Amendment was rejected by a five to four Supreme Court decision. The law required a cheek swab for DNA analysis, even if the individual had not been connected to the crime they were initially arrested for.
Dissenting Opinion and Fourth Amendment Violation
Justice Scalia's dissent, joined by three liberals, highlighted the violation of personal dignity through suspicionless DNA searches. The dissent scrutinized the majority's reasoning and pointed out the search's infringement on privacy rights and lack of justified suspicion. Scalia underscored the unconstitutional nature of DNA searches conducted without specific crime-related suspicion.
Implications of the Majority Opinion
The majority's assertion that balancing government interests with privacy intrusions defines reasonableness raises concerns about unchecked DNA searches. The reliance on technology and streamlined processes obscures the violation of privacy and lack of evidence-based suspicion. The ruling sets a dangerous precedent by justifying suspicionless DNA searches of arrested individuals.
In the movies, detectives trail a suspect until he messes up and throws his DNA-soaked paper cup into the trash. In real life, they just pretend like they don't understand the word "identify" in order to abuse the 4th Amendment.
If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To hear this and other Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.
5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.
Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon.