Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Routine DNA Testing- Constitutional or Not?

Last week in Biology class, we discussed that following an arrest, DNA samples are collected from the suspect and stored in databases.  While initially I thought this may be an effective method to identify criminals, I began to question whether it was constitutional.  Then I read an article that addressed this topic in greater depth and the article referenced the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King [12-207].

In some states, DNA is taken from every person that is taken into police custody, whether they are guilty of a crime or not.  This means that anyone who gets arrested, not necessarily charged with a crime, has to give their DNA, an integral part of their identification.

Although, according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, "lots of murders, lots of rapes can be solved using this new technology", it also pushes the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment.  The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure without probable cause.  However, the police are taking the DNA of people that may be completely innocent.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remarked sarcastically, "I'll bet if you conduct a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you'd get more convictions, too."  Scalia clearly believes that routine DNA testing is wrong because it violates the Fourth Amendment.

Without any evidence of a criminal conviction, the government can take DNA from citizens that are arrested.  Therefore, I believe that it is unconstitutional to DNA test suspects following an arrest because it violates the Fourth Amendment.  I would not want my DNA sitting in a government database for them to test and monitor without my permission, especially if I was not convicted of a crime.  On the other hand, there is the possibility that criminals could be detected, preventing more crimes.  Is it worth taking the DNA of the innocent with the hope of stopping the guilty?

Would you want the government to have your DNA in their database? And do you think DNA testing after arrests violates the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?  Please leave comments below.

1 comment:

  1. Timely topic, Jeremy! I would argue it's a bit lengthy and it sets up the reader for really only one option -- to agree with you. But I like your reportage of the SC Justice banter. Not sure you can divine intentions by their line of questioning, tho. Strong otherwise.

    ReplyDelete