Collection of DNA samples from people arrested and charged with certain crimes is Constitutional, according to ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 decision Monday, the court ruled that such testing was not a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights and no more intrusive than fingerprinting or photographing a suspect.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that "the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito joined Kennedy in his opinion.
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that while such testing would surely lead to identifying additional suspects in criminal investigations, the cheek swabs represented an unwarranted intrusion.
"Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an air- plane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school," Scalia wrote. "Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Scalia in the dissenting opinion.
The decision comes nearly a year after a Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that such testing was unconstitutional.
The court in July ruled in a 5-2 vote that Wicomico County police violated Fourth Amendment rights, restricting unreasonable searches, when Alonzo J. King Jr. was arrested in 2009 and police took a sample of his DNA.
That test later resulted in King being charged with a 2003 rape—a charge for which he was ultimately convicted.
The ruling by the state's highest court led to jurisdictions including Baltimore County to halt such testing pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Douglas Gansler said in a statement Monday that the Supreme Court ruling represented "a resounding victory for both civil libertarians and law enforcement."
“This decision will help us solve cases and take criminals off the street. We were confident all along the Court would agree that taking a DNA swab is no more invasive than taking someone’s fingerprints – and that DNA is an important tool in both identifying the guilty and exonerating the wrongly accused," said Gansler, whose office argued against the state court ruling in the Supreme Court.
Gov. Martin O'Malley also praised the ruling, calling DNA testing a "very effective new tool in our efforts to save lives by reducing violent crime and resolving open investigations."
Read More:
- Baltimore Co. Police to Halt DNA Collections of Suspects
- Shellenberger: SCOTUS DNA Decision Won't Have Immediate Impact
- County Police Resume Collecting DNA Samples
- Supreme Court: Maryland DNA Ruling Conflicts With Other States