Breaking: Supreme Court OK’s taking DNA upon arrest

[Laelth]

15. The headline did not specify the means of seizing the suspect's DNA.

Perhaps it was an epithelial scrape of the inside of the cheek? I don't know. I haven't read the opinion, nor do I know the facts of the case that gave rise to the opinion.

I do know, however, that a DNA test requires some kind of seizure of some part of a human's body. A fingerprint also requires a temporary seizure (of the whole person), but not a permanent seizure of human tissue that will then be subjected to a very serious and detailed search. I don't like getting fingerprinted, personally, but I had to be fingerprinted in order to become an attorney. That's different because I consented to the search and seizure. Seizing the tissue of a citizen who is innocent until proven guilty strikes me as unreasonable. A DNA search is terribly invasive, and if my DNA isn't private, it's hard to imagine what is.

The Court has issued some questionable rulings on this subject. Urine is not private, for example, and it can be searched for drugs on the theory that it has been abandoned by its owner and its owner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to their abandoned property. That strikes me as rather draconian, but it's better than saying no citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their DNA. That's way more police power than I am willing to stomach.

-Laelth