mandalay:

In the first case of its type, a federal judge in California has ruled that police can forcibly take DNA samples, including drawing blood with a needle, from Americans who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. (via azspot)

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows ruled on Thursday that a federal law allowing DNA samples upon arrest for a felony was constitutional and did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Hollows, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, said the procedure was no more invasive or worrisome than fingerprinting or a photograph. “The court agrees that DNA sampling is analogous to taking fingerprints as part of the routine booking process upon arrest,” he wrote, calling it “a law enforcement tool that is a technological progression from photographs and fingerprints.”

Holy shit. This is unbelievable. The point is not that DNA testing is physically invasive; it is that it lasts FOREVER.  If you are arrested, but not convicted!, the government has the power to be able to track and label you for the rest of your life. I wouldn’t be surprised if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court. )Magistrate Judges are nobodies, anyway.) -M

 I don’t like the idea of this, but is CODIS/DNA databases really that different from the computerized fingerprint databases that are already out there?  What is a good Constitutional argument against collecting DNA as part of identifying and processing someone at arrest?  I don’t think the invasiveness thing is going to get anyone very far.  It’s a search, for sure, but it’s a search incident to arrest.  Once you’re arrested, you can pretty much throw your expectation of privacy about your person out the window. I want to come up with a good argument against this, but we did crim procedure today in review so I’m mired in 4th Am. -MATC