We simply have to do this.The Supreme Court this week ruled with a majority conservative decision that police officers and take DNA samples from any suspect the officer arrests.
NBC
Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest
By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.
The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.
The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.
The SCOTUS upholding such law, on the surface, seems a bit over the top. Am I to assume that if I get pulled over and for some reason the police officer and I have a discussion about the nature of the stop and, heavens forbid, a disagreement about the conditions under which I was stopped ensues, could it be that I could be swabbed. Ah, you will say “No’ because I am not yet placed under arrest. Well, I am afraid that some people have a vastly different experience with most police than some of you.
Now, before anyone else in the media goes here, let’s explore and pioneer just a bit.
Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC The Last Word, on recently released ACLU data regarding African-American arrests related to marijuana possession. Follow me now.
May I ask you a question? Actually, do I need to ask the question?
The Pardu's Scroll 