Jay Evensen
  • Front Page
  • Opinions
  • Second Thoughts
  • Portfolio
  • Awards
  • About

DNA samples from suspects and Scalia's rant

6/3/2013

0 Comments

 
PictureJustice Antonin Scalia
In the old days — really old days before fingerprints could easily be captured — it was common for police to require suspects to give up their shoes. These were then used to measure whether they fit the footprints found at a

crime scene.

That was hardly conclusive evidence. Unless the culprit had grotesquely large or tiny feet, a footprint could belong to any of countless people. But it was a tool to help narrow the focus.

They did not, however, take those shoes and apply them to a database of other crimes committed by similar-sized feet.

Then came fingerprinting, which provides much more conclusive evidence. These have long been admissible in trials, and police can compel suspects to have their fingerprints recorded and documented without violating any constitutional rights.

“Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no person may be compelled to be a compulsory witness against himself or herself. However, this provision generally applies only to involuntary confessions and forced testimony. A person suspected of a crime does not have the right to be free from the taking of fingerprints. Criminal suspects may also be required to surrender other personal information, such as physical appearance and measurements, handwriting and voice samples, teeth bites, normal walking gait, and normal standing posture. Unlike most of these characteristics, fingerprints cannot be easily changed.”

So says the free online legal dictionary (read it here).

So when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that it is permissible to take a DNA sample from suspects, that was just the next logical step in the progression of physical evidence that could be collected in connection with crime-solving, right?

Well, one might have thought so. Instead, while the court held that the practice was legal, the ruling came as a 5-4 decision that presented an odd divide among the liberal and conservative justices. (Read the ruling by clicking here.)

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent. He said the taking of a DNA sample is not at all the same as requiring suspects to have fingerprints recorded.

“Fingerprints of arrestees are taken primarily to identify them (though that process sometimes solves crimes); the DNA of arrestees is taken to solve crimes (and nothing else),” he wrote, adding “…Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail.”

Later, he wrote, “Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the ‘identity’ of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

Many people probably won’t think twice about this case. After all, a DNA sample could do as much to exonerate a falsely accused person as it might do to convince someone.

Scalia can be a bit overwrought, at times, but his point about warrantless searches is worth pondering. Where do we draw the line on the personal information, the constant surveillance and the accumulation of data?

And if we don’t draw a line, hasn’t the state at some point removed too much liberty in the name of safety? And couldn’t this store of information be used in ways we come to regret?
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

    Search this site


    Like what you read here?

      Please subscribe below, and we'll let you know when there is a new opinion.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Picture

    The author

    Jay Evensen is the Senior Editorial Columnist of the Deseret News. He has 32 years experience as a reporter, editor and editorial writer in Oklahoma, New York City, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. He also has been an adjunct journalism professor at Brigham Young and Weber State universities.

    Archives

    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012

    Categories

    All
    Campaign 2012
    Congress
    Crime
    Culture
    Iran
    Oil And Gas
    Poverty
    Steroids
    Taxes
    Utah
    Washington
    World Events
    World Events

    Links

    Deseret News
    Newslink
    Marianne Evensen's blog

Privacy policy Contact us

Subscribe to our newsletter