I am also concerned by the judge ruling that the FBI can demand personal data from Google without a warrant. I cannot find much on it...this is the best I found: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/news/federal-judge-orders-google-to-hand-over-data-to-fbi/story-fni0bzod-1226655227573

Here’s what I find truly amusing about this….
I see this and get to say, “I told you so.”

I see people posting all over facebook about how much they don’t like this yet, these same people are mainly the ones that supported ObamaCare, are in favor of banning guns,(not reasonable restrictions on ownership but outright bans), and support the TSA. I saw the writing on the wall long before this came to pass. I actually said, “Just wait. Soon, they’ll be able to get your DNA or search your home without a warrant,” but I was called paranoid, anti-government, blah blah blah… I was accused of hating poor people, called stupid...etc…
But, here it is. Suddenly, these same people NOW, have a problem?

Sorry folks. You brought this on yourselves.
Like I always say, if you allow the government control over one aspect of your life, or give up one part of your rights, you allow for more later. You don't get to cherry pick when your rights are important and when they aren't.

I won’t hold my breathe for any apologies from those people, though. It's likely that they'll find a way to justify this in thier heads too. After all, if you've got nothing to hide... blah blah blah... I can practically hear the Thought Police knocking on my door now.

Your body is your property

Government is the only thing we all belong to.

This "reasonable restrictions "on gun ownership is a strawman.

We already have reasonable restrictions on gun ownership in this country and the only ones pushing more restrictions are the idiots who don't know about the thousands of laws already on the books, and those who actually want an outright ban, but have to sound reasonable in order to have a chance in their next election.

My fellow expat coworkers and I were stunned by this decision... are the Supremes so out of touch that they really don't understand the implications of DNA information?

Scalia's dissent was scathing.

Together with the IRS scandals, it feels like the America we grew up in doesn't exist anymore.

Your body is your property, and nobody has a right to take a part of it from you, even the smallest cell scraping, violating your privacy, if you have not been proven to have committed a crime.

Perhaps.

I could be wrong on this, but I think the police can compel a blood or urine test after a DUI arrest; refusing amounts to a de facto guilty plea.

For anyone who equates taking DNA with fingerprinting someone; as Mike Masnick points out at TechDirt, fingerprinting is used to identify a person -- to identify you as you, "but that's wholly different from taking a DNA sample from them to then run through a giant database of unsolved crimes to see if you (or, in some cases, a relative) might possibly be implicated."

Again, perhaps.

And again, I could be wrong, but there is nothing in principle preventing the police from running your fingerprints through a giant fingerprint data base of unsolved crimes.

I have a hard time seeing the downside. SFAIK, DNA has been used to do one of two things: exonerate the innocent, and convict the guilty. Is there any chance of it doing anything else?

I may be overly optimistic, but I can see ONE possible unexpected benefit coming out of this.

Namely, men have complained, before, that one can use DNA to beat a murder charge, but not to beat a false charge of paternity. So this new ruling just might life harder for the supporters of paternity fraud, if you see what I mean.

Jeff:

but there is nothing in principle preventing the police from running your fingerprints through a giant fingerprint data base of unsolved crimes.

Nope. But they're supposed to only run that for the felons, not the nurses and CCWers and CDLers and..

But that aside.

The issue is that your fingerprints ID you. Just you. Not the cousins, not the siblings.

So when they troll your DNA through the DB, and they get a hit! Partial match! ... Sure hope you know where all your cousins are (and none of the aunts/uncles/parents cheated and got somebody pregnant...)

"but [fingerprinting is] wholly different from taking a DNA sample from them to then run through a giant database of unsolved crimes to see if you (or, in some cases, a relative) might possibly be implicated."

Not really.

When the police take your fingerprints, they run them through a "giant database of unsolved crimes to see if you ... might possibly be implicated."

The "or, in some cases, a relative" part is worrisome. That means the police can arrest your sibling to see if anything pops up and use that evidence to tie you to a crime.

The difference is that fingerprints are tied only to you and do not provide any other information. DNA, on the other hand, provides familial information and can be used to cast a wide net and fish for evidence.

The Constitution requires that search warrants be specific and any deviation from that specificity can result in evidence being dismissed.

A cop once told me you put the smallest thing you can on the search warrant. If you're looking for a suitcase and find a gun in a desk drawer which cold never hold a suitcase, you can't use the gun. But, if you're searching for a gun and find a suitcase, you can use it.

A DNA search that uncovers a relative is tantamount to a fishing expedition - which the Constitution does not allow.

"Perhaps.

I could be wrong on this, but I think the police can compel a blood or urine test after a DUI arrest; refusing amounts to a de facto guilty plea."

Yes, possibly,with some caveats. First you are talking about state law here, and it very much depends on what the individual state decides.

Some indicate automatic forfeiture of your license, upon refusal, but if you refuse in other states, the police have to get a warrant in order to make you submit to a blood test. A urine test may be good enough for initial drug screening, but it would be tricky as evidence of alcohol DUI, as alcohol in urine is less reliable than the breathalyzer.

Again to get a judge to sign off on a warrant, you need probable cause. If there has been an accident with injuries you might get the warrant easily, but if it was a traffic stop fishing expedition you might not.

While I don't like the ruling, I can see both sides of it , and it is a bit less black and white than some other 4th Amendment Rights that the government has trampled all over.

Just an fyi, for something I completely missed until another pointed it out yesterday on this DNA ruling... this is the same supreme court that just over a month ago ruled that the cops need a warrant to take your blood. Blood bad, dna ok! How does that makes sense?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/17/177666177/supreme-court-backs-warrants-for-blood-tests-in-dui-cases

This is just another example of OMGWTFBBQ nonsense out of the 9 black robed thugs on the court.

The other questionable thing is this is the "serious offense" portion.

I get picked up for a .03 DUI do I have to give a DNA sample. What about a mutual combatant bar fight? What about my ex-wife is making a complaint that I beat her?

Do I now become a suspect because I walked into the 7-11 at on December 15th, 2005 at 10:40 PM to buy a pack of band-aids and left a droplet of blood behind after the store was robbed and clerks were kill at around 11:45 PM? BTW, where were you on December 15th, 2005 at 10:40 PM?

I may be wrong on this; but finger printing isn't all that black and white.

While the fingerprints they get from someone in a calm situation (such as what they do at the police station, hospitals, etc.) might be clear, the prints are very different from a crime scene where they get "partial" matches.

Now, at a trial the defense attorney is suppose to help "educate" a jury on this point - that a partial match doesn't mean it is the right guy. (there is some sort of "point" system to help give a percentage of it being the same print; but, can we really depend on juries to get this?)

So, with fingerprinting having this kid of doubt; how can we expect mass DNA searches to not also have the same problems? So, yea, I do have a problem with them doing a "grand sweep" of DNA for ANYONE who gets arrested. DNA partial matches might just be "useful" for some overzealous DA trying to clear up some unsolved cases and helping his career.

The Duke LaCrosse team didn't even involve fingerprinting or DNA and look how those guys almost got railroaded.

Charles brings up some interesting points that are along the sames lines I was pursuing.

Running a DNA profile is not cheap, and DNA that is not stored properly degrades badly over time, so if the police start doing this on a routine basis, it will consume more and more of their budget.

Again, the taxpayers will ultimately pick up the tab for this invasive over reach if police departments decide to whilly nilly take and keep a DNA profile of "everyone".

A DNA search that uncovers a relative is tantamount to a fishing expedition - which the Constitution does not allow.

Yes, but they can then arrest the cousin on some pretext and get his DNA directly, end run around the problem

Posted by: Isab at June 5, 2013 7:27 AM

A DNA search that uncovers a relative is tantamount to a fishing expedition - which the Constitution does not allow.

Yes, but they can then arrest the cousin on some pretext and get his DNA directly, end run around the problem

Posted by: lujlp at June 5, 2013 7:38 AM

This probably won't happen. Running the DNA might tell you that the suspect was a third degree relative of the individual whose DNA was in the data base, But it won't tell you which third degree relative (cousin) it was.

I personally have twenty third degree relatives, (that I know about) and probably ten others than I don't. Good luck finding them, let alone finding a pretext to arrest them all, and test their DNA.