Maryland, DNA and the 4th Amendment

[grumpyMSG]

In the current case, Alonzo King was arrested in 2009 on assault charges. Police obtained a swab of cheek cells- the main means of collecting DNA samples as anyone who has watched any crime show is well aware. The DNA collection was required under Maryland law not for evidence in the assault charges, but it was required under state law. Three months later as he awaited trial on the assault charges, results of that DNA sample came back which linked him to DNA evidence collected from a 2003 unsolved rape. In this case, the victim of that rape was unable to positively identify King as her attacker. Nevertheless, based solely on the DNA evidence, a grand jury returned an indictment against King in the 2003 rape case. His lawyers immediately moved to suppress the DNA evidence collected. The case eventually went to the Maryland Court of Appeals, their highest state court, who ruled that the DNA evidence collected was unconstitutional since there was no warrant in the first instance.

I could argue both sides of it. If fingerprinting is not unreasonable, is a swab that much more invasive? To me the similarity to fingerprinting argument is going to be what causes the case to fly or die.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/217182511000 ... onviction/
http://www.redstate.com/davenj1/2013/02 ... d-vs-king/

[gunderwood]

To me the similarity to fingerprinting argument is going to be what causes the case to fly or die.

I agree that this is the likely pivot point of the case. However, I do think it's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but I'm also pretty certain that the court will allow it. Nothing new, all three branches of the Federal government have been colluding for years.

With this type of thinking, pretty soon we'll have to give a DNA sample for a simple speeding ticket...and I'm only somewhat kidding.

[mamabearCali]

How about this....don't rape people....then the cheek swab is moot.


In general I would put it under the same area as fingerprints, but if we are going to use it as such then we need to have it out in by law. I am uncomfortable when we work on shaky legal grounds.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

If the state has your DNA, how hard would it be to "plant" your DNA?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

I'll supply my DNA when they get a warrant for it. Once you're in their system it's amazing what you pop up for, whether you did it or not.

[gunderwood]

I'll supply my DNA when they get a warrant for it. Once you're in their system it's amazing what you pop up for, whether you did it or not.

+1

We put rules in place for the government to follow to protect the innocent not the guilty. It just happens to be that we can't know which is which until after the trial. You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but so many right-wingers want to be tough on crime to the point we might as well just the cop execute the accused right then and there. Why bother with arrest and due process?

Edit: The irony of course is that if they were fingerprinted and DNA sample taken during a false arrest, say for open carrying that would be wrong.