Supreme Court Upholds DNA Swabs of Those Under Arrest
Not a violation of 4th Amendment
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Jun 3, 2013 1:13 PM CDT
   (Shutterstock)

(Newser) – DNA swabbing the cheek of a person arrested—but not yet convicted—for a "serious offense" is just as acceptable as fingerprinting and photographing that person, the Supreme Court ruled today. Such DNA swabs do not violate a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches, the justices found. Interestingly, the conservative Antonin Scalia joined three liberal judges in dissenting (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan), which shows just how concerned he is with privacy issues, NBC News reports.

The case prompting the ruling involved a man, Alonzo King, who was arrested in 2009 on assault charges. The DNA swab police took ended up implicating him in an unsolved rape, for which he was convicted. That conviction was later reversed, on the grounds that the swab had violated King's Fourth Amendment rights, though KMBZ reports he is still serving his life sentence. But in its ruling, the court found that such swabbing is "a legitimate police booking procedure," particularly because it is not an intrusive procedure. Currently, 28 states and the federal government swab those who are under arrest.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Your Take
1%
7%
4%
58%
16%
14%
16% of people agree
that it's Scary
Check Out Another Scary Story
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 80 comments
Wrongdirection
Jun 6, 2013 1:53 PM CDT
This just in~! I have now gotten my DNA in copyright and have sold those rights to a corporation. So, Be careful of taking a swab or needle to me! You may have a big ass lawsuit against you for an unknown amount of money!! Have a nice day, "Not So Supreme Court!"
trailmix
Jun 4, 2013 12:20 PM CDT
It seems to me that the Constitution was created to protect citizens from unjustified prosecution, not to protect criminals from being prosecuted. Sounds like many comments are willing to accept the later.
okaragozian
Jun 4, 2013 11:44 AM CDT
A stool sample; is it ok for the government to get a sample of my stool? I think we should all send the judges a sample of our stool so that they can catalog them for comparison with their own stool samples - this way they can trace their ancestry much more easily.