Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court gives OK to DNA swabs taken from arrestees; already takes place in Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    fine with me. Frankly I couldn't care if the criminals don't like it, they're criminals.

    Don't like it? Don't be a criminal

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 3, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    It's okay to have a fingerprint database, where wrongfully arrested people are still required to submit.

    It's okay to have a convicted sex offender database, where wrongfully arrested people are still required to submit.

    It's okay, now, to have a DNA database, where wrongfully arrested people are still required to submit.

    But don't you dare try to make a database showing who has guns in the neighborhood, because that, unlike the others, would violate Constitutional rights.

    Makes perfect sense.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 4, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    "fine with me. Frankly I couldn't care if the criminals don't like it, they're criminals."

    I have no problem with a DNA database of convicted "criminals"

    But, Arrested does not equal Convicted, does not equal Guilty, does not equal criminal.

    Pulled over for speeding? DNA swab?
    This is an overstep which is ripe for abuse.

  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    June 4, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    There is far more information in a swab of DNA then there is in a fingerprint. If you trust the police and the government to safeguard your private information and use it solely for identification purposes then you will probably be ok with this ruling. I do not object to the police collecting DNA from a criminal suspect but I wonder why it would be such a bother to obtain a warrant before doing so. If they have a suspect and probable cause it would be fairly easy to secure a warrant from a judge.