KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A controversial decision by the Supreme Court Monday upholds the practice of allowing police to take your DNA sample if you’re arrested.
Opponents say it’s an invasion of privacy.
Part of the controversy surrounds from whom DNA samples can be taken. Samples can be taken from people who have been arrested, but not necessarily convicted of a crime. Supporters say the swabbing practice is just like the 21st century version of fingerprinting.
Monday the Supreme Court ruled police can collect DNA from suspects who’ve been arrested even if they have not yet been convicted of a crime. No warrant is needed.
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote that it’s a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The five-justice majority said taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is like fingerprinting and photographing.
The ruling stems from a case in Maryland, when a suspect was arrested for assault in 2009. When police swabbed his cheek, his DNA matched evidence from an unrelated case. A judge then sentenced him to life in prison.The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed his conviction saying the DNA sample was an unreasonable search. The Supreme Court ruling reverses that decision.
“DNA is the 21st century fingerprint so we need to be able to solve cases, cold cases that we otherwise couldn’t solve,” said Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler.
After the sample is taken, the DNA is entered into a national database even if the suspect is later released. At least 28 states and the federal government already allow for DNA samples to be taken.