On June 3, 2013, the US Supreme Court, in Maryland v. King, ruled that the DNA Swab testing of an individual, under arrest, did not violate the fourth amendmenat right to privacy. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated that getting a DNA swab is a “reasonable search” and a “legitimate police booking procedure.” The Court essentially compared it with fingerprinting, claiming DNA swabs are like fingerprinting, just a more accurate form of identification. Though, dissenting, Justice Scalia, pointed out that DNA could not possibly be used as identification pursuant to an arrest since the DNA testing results ordinarily takes months to receive. Rather, DNA testing is used to solve crimes.
This case has major implications because now anyone who gets arrested could be subject to a DNA swab. On the one hand, I see it is a positive move in that the actual perpetrators of crimes may be more easily located and prosecuted. Hence, victims can find some sense of peace in that their aggressors will face justice. Likewise, those wrongfully accused of crimes can be exonerated through new DNA findings.
On the other hand, it is a setback, especially for civil rights advocates, as it can be viewed as a violation of an individual’s privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. Individuals should have a reasonable expectation of privacy surrounding their own DNA. I do acknowledge that individuals’ privacy rights have been limited under certain circumstances, such as those of prisoners convicted of crimes. However, this ruling doesn’t merely allow for swabs of those not yet convicted, rather it is an open invitation for DNA swabs of all arrested, including unlawfully arrested (checkout Scalia's dissenting opinion on page 33). That is a scary thing. So, I think the question to still consider is at what point do we really think it is legitimate to limit one’s fourth amendment privacy rights and to what extent?
For more on this case and a quick three minute film clips, view the NBC News Clips, which also features attorney Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project.
This case has major implications because now anyone who gets arrested could be subject to a DNA swab. On the one hand, I see it is a positive move in that the actual perpetrators of crimes may be more easily located and prosecuted. Hence, victims can find some sense of peace in that their aggressors will face justice. Likewise, those wrongfully accused of crimes can be exonerated through new DNA findings.
On the other hand, it is a setback, especially for civil rights advocates, as it can be viewed as a violation of an individual’s privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. Individuals should have a reasonable expectation of privacy surrounding their own DNA. I do acknowledge that individuals’ privacy rights have been limited under certain circumstances, such as those of prisoners convicted of crimes. However, this ruling doesn’t merely allow for swabs of those not yet convicted, rather it is an open invitation for DNA swabs of all arrested, including unlawfully arrested (checkout Scalia's dissenting opinion on page 33). That is a scary thing. So, I think the question to still consider is at what point do we really think it is legitimate to limit one’s fourth amendment privacy rights and to what extent?
For more on this case and a quick three minute film clips, view the NBC News Clips, which also features attorney Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project.
RSS Feed
