PDA

View Full Version : Scalia: Trying to protect the Fourth



fj1200
06-04-2013, 10:10 PM
A damning dissent: Scalia’s dissent for the ages in the DNA case (http://news.yahoo.com/damning-dissent-scalia-dissent-ages-dna-case-212220706.html)

Some of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s greatest opinions have involved his passionate defense of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was Scalia who held, for a majority of the Court, that police need a valid warrant (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html) before they can use thermal imaging devices on a suspect’s home, or track his movements (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf) 24/7 for a month using a GPS device. Scalia has also written memorable dissents in defense of privacy, including his denunciation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/656#writing-type-16-SCALIASTEVENS) of warrantless drug testing for customs employees as “a kind of immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use.”

Yesterday, Scalia added to this impressive list by writing not only one of his own best Fourth Amendment dissents, but one of the best Fourth Amendments dissents, ever. In a 5-4 decision (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf)written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer (who often sides with the conservatives in Fourth Amendment cases), the Court upheld Maryland’s DNA Collection Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/14135a). That law allows the police to seize DNA without a warrant from people who have been arrested for serious crimes and then plug the sample into the federal CODIS database, to see if they are wanted for unrelated crimes.

...

Scalia concludes his inspiring dissent by noting the tremendous stakes in the case, and the dangers posed by the Court’s uncritical approval of DNA testing of arrestees—a decision that will affect the “nearly one-third of Americans [who] will be arrested for some offense by age 23.” He predicts that although “the Court disguises the vast (and scary) scope of its holding by promising a limitation it cannot deliver”—namely, that DNA testing will be limited to those arrested for serious crimes such as felonies—the logic of the decision would, in fact, allow DNA tests to “identify” those arrested for traffic offenses. He then directly addresses American citizens, in rousing words that he read from the bench: “Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” And he ends with one of his most memorable images: “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.”


It is regrettable that five members of the Supreme Court upheld state and federal DNA databases based on a premise that Scalia reveals to be a fiction: that the purpose of DNA testing is to identify suspects rather than to solve cold cases. Scalia notes that the Court’s broad holding—that DNA can be seized from arrestees—was “quite unnecessary,” since everyone concedes that King’s DNA could have been seized as a result of his conviction for second-degree assault. The 22 remaining states that don’t collect DNA from arrestees are likely to do so now, and the threats to privacy will only grow. But it is inspiring to see Justice Scalia’s wit, passion, and devotion to constitutional principle being deployed so effectively on behalf of American liberty.

BillyBob
06-04-2013, 10:15 PM
1/3 of americans will be arrested by age 23?

Robert A Whit
06-04-2013, 10:22 PM
The dissent by Scalia reminds me of the dissent by Rhenquist opinion on Roe v. Wade

I always admired that dissent.

logroller
06-11-2013, 11:07 PM
The new standard of privacy: guilty until proven innocent (not aquitted or merely not charged==> proven innocent)-- its all downhill from here.

fj1200
06-11-2013, 11:28 PM
A damning dissent: Scalia’s dissent for the ages in the DNA case (http://news.yahoo.com/damning-dissent-scalia-dissent-ages-dna-case-212220706.html)


He then directly addresses American citizens, in rousing words that he read from the bench: “Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”


Sounds spot on to the NSA database issue as well except today we don't even need to commit a crime for data to be housed by the government.

BillyBob
06-11-2013, 11:34 PM
The new standard of privacy: guilty until proven innocent (not aquitted or merely not charged==> proven innocent)-- its all downhill from here.


You'll never be able to prove your innocence against the government.

We're all screwed.

fj1200
06-12-2013, 08:06 AM
Sounds spot on to the NSA database issue...

Stephen Colbert tells Jeffrey Rosen why the NSA is spying on Americans (http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-colbert-tells-jeffrey-rosen-why-nsa-spying-101422290.html)
Rosen explained to Colbert that he agrees with Colbert’s conservative “hero,” Justice Antonin Scalia, about the government’s invasion of privacy, citing a recent Scalia dissent to a court decision involving police taking the DNA of suspects.

Bam!

Missileman
06-12-2013, 03:34 PM
How is this any different than running fingerprints or tattoos or any other biometric data through a check for matches sought in other crimes? If a rapist eludes capture and is picked up in another state for burglary and is subsequently prosecuted for the rape because they found him through a DNA check, I'm not seeing a problem.

Thunderknuckles
06-12-2013, 04:06 PM
How is this any different than running fingerprints or tattoos or any other biometric data through a check for matches sought in other crimes? If a rapist eludes capture and is picked up in another state for burglary and is subsequently prosecuted for the rape because they found him through a DNA check, I'm not seeing a problem.
Unlike fingerprints, your DNA has much more to say about you. This can be used for or against you far beyond the limited scope of catching criminals and it WILL be abused.

logroller
06-12-2013, 04:13 PM
How is this any different than running fingerprints or tattoos or any other biometric data through a check for matches sought in other crimes? If a rapist eludes capture and is picked up in another state for burglary and is subsequently prosecuted for the rape because they found him through a DNA check, I'm not seeing a problem.
Persons can, and do have aliases. Fingerprinting/ photos of tattoos etc are a reasonable means of ascertaining the identity of an individual and I believe that was how the practice was billed as being a reasonably necessary intrusion upon liberty. IS there some inefficacy there that demands further intrusion? Are there lot's of rapists out there that, despite presenting probable cause for arrest, elude probable cause for a search warrant?

I would think that there would be probable cause to issue a warrant for the collection of DNA if one was arrested for burglary. There are reasons for unwarranted searches. Exigence, the perp might flee, destroy evidence etc. But if they're already under arrest, then they're in custody and not going anywhere soon; and its not as though someone can destroy their genes. So what's the problem that unwarranted DNA collection is meant to solve?

Get the warrant; do the search-- that's the process I believe the founding fathers envisioned.

Missileman
06-12-2013, 06:40 PM
Persons can, and do have aliases. Fingerprinting/ photos of tattoos etc are a reasonable means of ascertaining the identity of an individual and I believe that was how the practice was billed as being a reasonably necessary intrusion upon liberty. IS there some inefficacy there that demands further intrusion? Are there lot's of rapists out there that, despite presenting probable cause for arrest, elude probable cause for a search warrant?

I would think that there would be probable cause to issue a warrant for the collection of DNA if one was arrested for burglary. There are reasons for unwarranted searches. Exigence, the perp might flee, destroy evidence etc. But if they're already under arrest, then they're in custody and not going anywhere soon; and its not as though someone can destroy their genes. So what's the problem that unwarranted DNA collection is meant to solve?

Get the warrant; do the search-- that's the process I believe the founding fathers envisioned.

Unless you're already aware that you have an un-indicted rapist in your custody, on what basis might you get a warrant?

I don't know the stats for the nation, but in Cali alone, 56% of reported rapes go unsolved. http://www.safecalifornia.org/facts/unsolved

Unless the prosecution's case was going to depend on DNA evidence, I don't see how being arrested for burglary would constitute probable cause for a warrant to obtain a sample. Or are you arguing that there are offenses that if arrested for should get a rubber stamp warrant for DNA...aka, automatic probable cause?