The assault on our rights continues unabated....

Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest...

When Scalia joins w/ the liberals on the bench to oppose DNA profiling, something ain't right.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18722878-supreme-court-upholds-dna-swabbing-of-people-under-arrest?lite



Come on, what could possible go wrong with this ruling...? Is it possible some LEO's could use this as a phishing license...?

Naahhh. That would be so wrong they would never pull over a target, arrest them for resisting arrest w/out violence, haul them in and book them just to get their DNA.

It's a brave new world, huh...?

If you are innocent...physical evidence can be your best friend.

Joanimaroni wrote:If you are innocent...physical evidence can be your best friend.

I give a thumbs up to this Supreme Court action.

Joanimaroni wrote:If you are innocent...physical evidence can be your best friend.

Shut up bitch.

Go stalk someone else and post inane BS trying to over simplify a very serious issue, one that Justice Scalia called the single most important case before the USSC in it's entire existence.

clean up on aisle 12....broken eggs and olive oil.

Aww....someone has a bee in his bonnet.

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

I bet that's mentioned in the decision.

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

....................................

Not even close. A person's DNA could also be planted to insure a conviction.

If a perp is tried and convicted, by all means....harvest that DNA and look for matches in unsolved cases.

It requires more effort to obtain a search warrant than it does to take someone's DNA. Sorta kills off the whole idea of presumed innocence until proven guilty.

message delivered

Bill wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Aww....someone has a bee in his bonnet.

.............

Awww....some redneck bitch has got smegma on her chin.

Still buzzing around your head.

Nekochan wrote:

Bill wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Aww....someone has a bee in his bonnet.

.............

Awww....some redneck bitch has got smegma on her chin.

Still buzzing around your head.

.................................

Slow day at the hate factory, huh Marie...?

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

Here ya go Sal.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, 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,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy in the court’s majority opinion.

Bill wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Bill wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Aww....someone has a bee in his bonnet.

.............

Awww....some redneck bitch has got smegma on her chin.

Still buzzing around your head.

.................................

Still sucking that diseased cock, huh Marie...?

Oh, you're worse off today than I even realized. Poor thing. Just more threats and vile posts.

Nekochan wrote:

Bill wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Bill wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Aww....someone has a bee in his bonnet.

.............

Awww....some redneck bitch has got smegma on her chin.

Still buzzing around your head.

.................................

Still sucking that diseased cock, huh Marie...?

Oh, you're worse off today than I even realized. Poor thing. Just more threats and vile posts.

.............................

Bump it up your ass.

Still stuck on stupid stalking....your learning curve is a straight line, bitch.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

Here ya go Sal.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, 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,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy in the court’s majority opinion.

I can see where it would be a handy tool for police.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

Here ya go Sal.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, 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,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy in the court’s majority opinion.

......................................

And...?

If they uphold a serious effort to do background checks, close the gun show loopholes, and see it as reasonable to require gun registration, will you still support their wise decision...?

Better yet, why not require a DNA sample for folk to buy a gun. I mean, if the person is innocent, they have nothing to hide, right...?

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

Here ya go Sal.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, 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,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy in the court’s majority opinion.

I can see where it would be a handy tool for police.

.........................

A vehicle is a handy tool to use when you want to run down and execute a fleeing perp. They can always collect the DNA from his dead body, right? Then they can use it to try and justify their act of murder.


"....it was the right thing to do. he may not have been guilty when we summarily killed his punk ass, but DNA analysis revealed he was once arrested for smoking pot, and even though those charges were dismissed, he was obviously guilty of something and deserved to die...."

Bill wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

Here ya go Sal.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, 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,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy in the court’s majority opinion.

......................................

And...?

If they uphold a serious effort to do background checks, close the gun show loopholes, and see it as reasonable to require gun registration, will you still support their wise decision...?

Better yet, why not require a DNA sample for folk to buy a gun. I mean, if the person is innocent, they have nothing to hide, right...?

You are obviously missing an important past of Kennedy's writing.

"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause"

Last time I checked a person buying a gun had not been arrested on probable cause. Sorry but that bucket is so full of holes it won't hold a drop of water. To equate a felony probable cause arrest to someone buying a gun is just plain ludicrous.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Bill wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Sal wrote:I'm going to have to read the ruling on this one.

At first blush, I don't see how it's so very different from finger-printing.

Here ya go Sal.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, 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,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy in the court’s majority opinion.

......................................

And...?

If they uphold a serious effort to do background checks, close the gun show loopholes, and see it as reasonable to require gun registration, will you still support their wise decision...?

Better yet, why not require a DNA sample for folk to buy a gun. I mean, if the person is innocent, they have nothing to hide, right...?

You are obviously missing an important past of Kennedy's writing.

"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause"

Last time I checked a person buying a gun had not been arrested on probable cause. Sorry but that bucket is so full of holes it won't hold a drop of water. To equate a felony probable cause arrest to someone buying a gun is just plain ludicrous.

.............................

I was a cop, remember...? I know exactly what probable cause is, and how it can be used to make a traffic stop when the LEO wants to do a little dry land fishing.

As for your gun rebuttal, sorry....that dog don't hunt. A DNA database for gun buyers would eliminate convicted felons and issue of serious mental illness as customers from a legally licensed dealer.

I mean, like I said....if you're innocent you have nothing to fear.

Bill wrote:

I was a cop, remember...? I know exactly what probable cause is, and how it can be used to make a traffic stop when the LEO wants to do a little dry land fishing.

As for your gun rebuttal, sorry....that dog don't hunt. A DNA database for gun buyers would eliminate convicted felons and issue of serious mental illness as customers from a legally licensed dealer.

I mean, like I said....if you're innocent you have nothing to fear.

Apples and oranges, I remember you saying you were an Air Force cop. And I do not disagree with your innocent statement. If the cops were to ask to to voluntarily give them a sample of my DNA, I would gladly oblige. If DNA was required in order for me to obtain my Concealed Carry I would have also given it then also. I could see the DNA weeding out the felons in a gun purchase, but I'm not so sure that it would do anything about the mentally disturbed. Beside, when a gun is bought legally, the background will also any felons.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Bill wrote:

I was a cop, remember...? I know exactly what probable cause is, and how it can be used to make a traffic stop when the LEO wants to do a little dry land fishing.

As for your gun rebuttal, sorry....that dog don't hunt. A DNA database for gun buyers would eliminate convicted felons and issue of serious mental illness as customers from a legally licensed dealer.

I mean, like I said....if you're innocent you have nothing to fear.

Apples and oranges, I remember you saying you were an Air Force cop. And I do not disagree with your innocent statement. If the cops were to ask to to voluntarily give them a sample of my DNA, I would gladly oblige. If DNA was required in order for me to obtain my Concealed Carry I would have also given it then also. I could see the DNA weeding out the felons in a gun purchase, but I'm not so sure that it would do anything about the mentally disturbed. Beside, when a gun is bought legally, the background will also any felons.

.........................

WTF...? I spent 4 years as an LEO, performing similar duties to those of a Deputy Sheriff, garnering what equated to an Associate's Degree and for you to insinuate otherwise is heifer dust.

The rest of this kerfuffle is not worth us arguing over. I stated my opinion....you did likewise.

To me, that's a win/win all around.

Sal wrote:We have a rapidly developing technology that will increase correct convictions and decrease incorrect prosecutions.

The only reason to be against this is that you assume the government will become tyrannical and use the data for nefarious purposes.

That's the paranoid, libertarian worldview, so I'm sure it will have legs.

................................

Uh dude....I'm not talking about the government as you put it, I'm talking about crooked cops and District Attornies...like the ones in Texas who refuse to absolve someone they convicted on false charges, even after their DNA proves them to be innocent of the crime they were wrongly convicted of committing.

Just because you're paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get you. J. Lennon

Sal wrote:We have a rapidly developing technology that will increase correct convictions and decrease incorrect prosecutions.

The only reason to be against this is that you assume the government will become tyrannical and use the data for nefarious purposes.

That's the paranoid, libertarian worldview, so I'm sure it will have legs.

If you don't think the insurance lobby will get access to those DNA records you have too much trust in our government..