DNA Collection and Ruling

[DenverReader]

With the recent Supreme Court Ruling regarding the permissibility of DNA collection upon arrest, was it addressed at all as to whether or not its a violation of a relative's Fourtth Amendement's? Given that DNA gives information about a person's relatives as well as the individual, it would seem that this would be something to be addressed. Also, was it addressed at all as to whether giving DNA is a violation of a person's Fifth Amendment Rights?

 

[army judge]

Simply put, DNA can be collected.
Nothing was addressed about relatives.
Heck, identical twins have the same statistical DNA.
So, take DNA from Bobby Jones, is the same as taking his identical twin's Buddy Jones.
Bottom line, don't break the law, you won't be arrested, no one can take your DNA, mug shot, or fingerprints.

 

[Betty3]

They were talking on the radio (talk radio) about the Supreme Court's ruling this month allowing police to compel DNA samples from people arrested for serious offenses also solving cold cases around the country & putting the dangerous criminals behind bars. They mentioned a case of a man arrested in 2009 on an assault charge in Md. & a DNA sample was taken by swabbing the inside of his cheek (w/o a search warrant) as allowed by Md. law. Quite a few months later his DNA was matched with evidence from a prior rape case (believe 2003). The person was then tried & convicted of the rape.

They also mentioned that if DNA is going to be used to solve cold cases & put those people in prison, people already in prison should have a right to DNA testing that might exonerate them.

Apparently, per what was said, the ruling upholds laws already in place in something like 28 states & assume other states will probably pass DNA laws of their own.

 

[mightymoose]

The argument about relatives is a non-issue. A relative's rights are not infringed by DNA sampling of a family member. Besides, it is used for identification purposes, not for genetic analysis.