News on U.S. government agencies, U.S. politics, companies doing business with U.S. federal government. Read U.S. national and local news. This site is not affiliated with United States Government.
(USGovernment-News.Com, June 10, 2013 ) Los Angeles, CA -- Police are now allowed the authority to take DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious crimes. The Supreme court made the ruling on Monday, and some are now considering it a major victory for both law enforcement and crime victims alike.
The decision was a close 5-4 split in the nation's highest court. It allows for the taking of DNA samples with no more necessity or reason than a fingerprint or basic information taken when one is arrested for any crime.
Over a half of all states now require DNA mouth swabbing for any individual who is charged with a serious crime. Many states are still awaiting the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutional parameters of the act.
The FBI's national database has a reported 11 million DNA samples that are already on file, while the number is sure to jump upward in the coming years.
The Supreme Court stated that DNA has an “unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty,” and that taking a mouth swab from an arrestee was not an 'unreasonable search.'
“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito were included in the majority.
The decision regarding the Maryland vs. King case upheld the conviction of Alonzo King, who was charged with rape. He was arrested for the alleged assault, and his holding included a DNA sample as the cause of his being identified as the perpetrator of the rape.
Justice Antonin Scalia spoke on the side of dissent, stating that the 4th Amendment did not permit such searching of persons for other crimes they may have committed. In other words, one may not be held accountable for crimes outside the crime they are being arrested for. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agreed with Scalia.
About ElderLawyer-LosAngeles.com
Elder Lawyer: Los Angeles (http://www.elderlawyer-losangeles.com/) is the best website to connect you with LA’s finest criminal defense lawyers. Whether you need a Los Angeles Attorney for assault, drug offenses, fraud or federal crimes, or murder, Elder Attorney Los Angeles can match you with the best attorney for your particular case. Visit the website for a free criminal defense consultation and take the hassle out of finding an attorney.
We are pleased to offer you this exciting, new, and entirely free professional resource. Visit our Free Industry resource center today to browse our selection of 600+ complimentary Industry magazines, white papers, webinars, podcasts, and more. Get popular titles including:
