Supreme Court Hearing on Crime Suspects' DNA Looms

On Wired's Threat Level blog, David Kravets describes an upcoming US Supreme Court case that is expected to address whether authorities can take DNA samples from anybody arrested for a serious crime.

According to Kravets, "at least 27 states and the federal government have regulations requiring suspects to give a DNA sample upon some type of arrest, regardless of conviction."

"The upcoming hearing, slated for Feb. 26, has drawn a huge following from civil rights groups, crime victims, federal and state prosecutors and police associations — each arguing their party lines," he writes.

The Supreme Court will be charged with upholding or rejecting a previous decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals in a case involving a man, Alonzo King, who was arrested in 2009 on assault charges, and then convicted for a rape committed years earlier based on a DNA match.

The Maryland court overturned King's conviction, concluding that arrestees do have a Fourth Amendment-guaranteed "weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches," which is not outweighed by the state's need to accurately identify a suspect via DNA.

According to Kravets, the Supreme Court is probably going to reverse the lower court's conclusion, having suggested as much when it stayed the Maryland decision last July.


Well I doubt if this Court is

Well I doubt if this Court is bright enough to evaluate the case based on the issues but based on the reflexive reactions the various memebers have exhibited in the past I suspect they will get this one right. Collecting and evaluating DNA from someone without a warrant or subpoena predicated on probable cause that the evidence is relevant to a specific case under investigation is morally offensive, unconstitutional and a police state tactic.

However, one should note that

However, one should note that taking fingerprints for exactly the same purposes in the identical circumstances has been accepted practice for many decades, without seeming morally offensive, unconstitutional, or a police state tactic.

Have they issued a deposition

Have they issued a deposition subpoena regarding this issue? I suppose they're getting with this solution anymore.