Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Supreme Court: Cops Can Take Your DNA Just Like Fingerprints

June 4, 2013 by  

Supreme Court: Cops Can Take Your DNA Just Like Fingerprints
The Supreme Court has ruled that DNA information is no different from fingerprints.

Weeks ago, many people throughout the Nation expressed concern that a version of a forthcoming immigration reform bill included provisions that would allow the Federal government to keep a “biometric database.” While it turned out that biometric data would have been used only to supplement pre-existing e-Verify pre-employment checks for noncitizens, a Monday Supreme Court ruling brings the prospect of a Federal biometric database closer to reality—and it could affect anyone in the United States caught in the criminal justice dragnet.

A sharply divided Court said in a 5-4 decision that it would uphold a Maryland law which allows police to take a DNA swab of any individual charged with a violent crime, as long as they have probable cause.

The ruling stems from Maryland v. King, a case involving Alonzo King, who was arrested in 2009 on charges of first-degree assault. DNA taken from King during that arrest was used to link him to an earlier rape, for which he was tried and convicted. But King sued, alleging that police had violated 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure by taking his DNA.

The Court ruled that DNA should be considered identifying information, no different from fingerprints. Currently at least 28 States and the Federal government use information from DNA swabs after arrests. All 50 States collect the information from convicted criminals to check against Federal and State databanks— but the Supreme Court ruling pertains to people who have not yet been convicted of any crime.

“Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” the Court’s five-justice majority ruled.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, goes on, “In this respect the use of DNA for identification is no different than matching an arrestee’s face to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect; or matching tattoos to known gang symbols to reveal a criminal affiliation; or matching the arrestee’s fingerprints to those recovered from a crime scene.”

“Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in dissent.

There was no indication of the Court’s usual ideological divisions in the split ruling as conservative and liberal justices were in both groups. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer were among those in favor of the ruling. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement following the ruling, acknowledged the importance of DNA in solving crimes, but decried the collection of the biometric data from people who have not yet been convicted of crimes.

“Today’s decision creates a gaping new exception to the Fourth Amendment. As Justice Scalia’s dissent convincingly demonstrates, DNA testing of arrestees has little to do with identification and everything to do with solving unresolved crimes. While no one disputes the importance of that interest, the Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion. Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard. At the same time, it’s important to recognize that other state laws on DNA testing are even broader than Maryland’s and may present issues that were not resolved by today’s ruling.”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Supreme Court: Cops Can Take Your DNA Just Like Fingerprints”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.