Speak Outs
Speak Out
Is taking a suspect’s DNA at the time of arrest unconstitutional?

Feb. 15, 2013

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

When individuals are arrested and charged with a crime, they are fingerprinted. Police may try to connect the suspect to the crime through fingerprints, and the fingerprints also are added to a database.

But what if the police take more than a suspect’s fingerprints? What if they also collect the suspect’s DNA?

Ten years ago, Virginia became the first state to require that a DNA sample be taken from a suspect charged with a serious crime but not yet convicted. The sample is put in a federal database to check if the suspect is connected to other crimes.

In the past decade, the federal government and 27 states have joined Virginia in collecting DNA samples as well as fingerprints from suspects during booking. All states require that a DNA sample be taken from anyone convicted of a felony.

The collection of DNA at the time of arrest has raised privacy and search-and-seizure questions. In Maryland v. King, which is before the Supreme Court, the two sides’ arguments address the balance between a suspect’s privacy with the needs of law enforcement.

In Maryland v. King, a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after he was charged with assault. The sample connected him to a rape case. He eventually was convicted of rape and robbery and is serving a life sentence. His lawyers appealed the conviction, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when a DNA sample was taken without a warrant and before he had been convicted of a serious crime.

An appeals court in Maryland agreed with King. It said a suspect who had been arrested was entitled to a more privacy than a convicted felon. The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that taking DNA with a mouth swab was no more invasive than taking a fingerprint.

Law enforcement and supporters of DNA collection argue that it has been effective in connecting people charged with credit card fraud and burglary to more serious crimes such as rape and murder.

“It’s extremely important to quickly identify someone who would be a danger to society if he were on the loose,” said Deputy Police Chief Daniel Murray of Arlington County, Virginia.

Opponents of collecting DNA at the time of arrest argue that the collection is essentially searching one’s person without a warrant and violates the Fourth Amendment.

The American Civil Liberties Union stated in an amicus brief that the DNA collection raises “serious privacy concerns. It involves a bodily intrusion for an individual’s genetic blueprint, and the information it reveals is increasingly used for familial searching, thus extending its reach far beyond the actual person arrested.”

Update: On June 3, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that police are allowed to take a DNA sample when individuals are arrested. The majority opinion said taking the swab was similar to taking fingerprints and photographs and was not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The dissenting opinion warned of the consequences if taking DNA samples eventually extended beyond those arrested for "serious" crimes.

What do you think?


Should DNA samples be taken at the time of arrest or only after a conviction? Is DNA sampling the same as fingerprinting? Is taking a suspect’s DNA the same as a searching a home and thus require a warrant? Does DNA collection before a conviction violate the Fourth Amendment? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
3/16/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Tracey
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I see nothing wrong with taking DNA of a person during processing of an arrest. The police having someone's DNA on file can help if a person has already comitted a felony does something again. This can help because people who have done wrong and gotten away with it can be found if they do a smaller crime.

12/4/2015
Watertown/MA
Tyler
Watertown High School
I believe that DNA should be allowed to be taken at the time of arrest. If a suspect is arrested, taking DNA will make the process of determining if they have the correct person faster. Also, if the person is ever a suspect in a future crime and there is a DNA sample, it is easier to determine who the culprit is. Although DNA can be placed at the crime, it should only be used to help the police with the investigation and move them in the right direction.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Brian Buzzard
Mr. Hanna SJHS
DNA should not be taken at the time of arrest. It is unnecessary and can be done when the suspect is in custody. The suspect can have a chance of getting away while the person testing his DNA is occupied. The worst thing for the police delaying this action is that they find out the guy is innocent at a later time. It's kind of like checking fingerprints, they check it when the person committing the crime is in custody.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg,Pa
Nataliya
Mr.hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think DNA samples should be taken at the time of arrest because, it helps get to the problem faster.DNA sampling on a way is kind of like finger printing, both helps connect the person to the crime.i think DNA sample is the same as searching a house because, of you search the victims house you may find DNA there as well.

11/12/2014
Stroudsburg PA
Lia
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg SJHS
I believe we should legalize this because it would keep everyone more safe and it is but been proven to be effective so that it could possibly become more effective. If the person is a possible suspect it would make it a lot easier if you could take a DNA test without a warrant which makes the cade less time consuming.

6/12/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Isaac
Mr. Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I believe they should not be able to take DNA samples from anyone except for more then probable cause, they must know that they have drugs in there system or on crime for something else. The law also has to know what is wrong with them not just take DNA it does not take search and seizure laws

9/27/2013
Watertown/Ma
Leo
Rimas/Watertown
Taking a suspect's DNA at the time of arrest should be allowed. Upon arrest people already have to give up there finger print and picture, adding a DNA sample to this process shouldn't be an issue. A simple swap of the mouth is all that is needed. This is constitutional, it's not a search or seizure, just a swab of the mouth. If we did start collecting DNA at the time of arrest, it would guarantee to close cases and people that deserve to be behind bars, will be served justice. In all, a two second DNA sample can do no harm.

6/5/2013
Irving, TX
Delvon
Malcolm 5 Nimitz
I think that a DNA sample such as a mouth swab should be taken when a suspect is arrested because it is better to have the sample of file and not need it, then to not take the sample and need it. Also, if you take the sample, the sample might be linked to another crime that had not been solved. The Supreme Court ruled just this week that samples such as swabs were similar to fingerprints and photographs and not unreasonable.

5/13/2013
Rudyard, MT
Dono
Mrs.Campbell- Northstar
Well if the people did some wrong and broke the law and was saw doing the crime or saw them doing drugs or something, it depends on what they did, and yes it is unconstitutional. You cannot take someones DNA at the time of the arrest. When you take them in to jail then you can take DNA.

4/29/2013
New York
Hugh

It is extremely unconstitutional. The fact that they are taking bodily fluids from innocent people (Innocent until PROVEN guilty) IS against the constitution. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't save it in a database! If they discarded the information after use (for this particular crime) then it wouldn't be a problem. But to save personal information in a database assuming the suspect will again commit a crime is UNLAWFUL and WRONG.

4/11/2013
Benson/AZ
Kady
Sorensen/Benson
I don't think that is unconstitutional. Really a DNA test isn't anything invasive and it could really help the police identify suspects and potentially dangerous people faster.

4/3/2013
Benson
Haley
Sorensen
I do not believe that that is unconstitutional because those people have broken the law and have lost the right to say if they want them to have their prints because then it is easyier to find them for the next problems they cause.

3/8/2013
Benson, AZ
Jordan R.
Mr> Sorensen
It is not unconstitutional for the police to take a suspects DNA at the time of an arrest because the law enforcement needs to be able to do a cross check to see if the spect is someone they have had prior trouble with. The law enforcement also needs to know if the suspect is someone that is on a watch list, and who they are.

3/8/2013
Benson/AZ
Kaelin Lockett
Marv Sorensen
If someone has committed a crime then I think that it is only fair to do whatever is necessary to find out who did it. If you do not want your DNA tested don't do the crime!

3/7/2013
Benson, AZ
Richard Rose
Marv Sorensen/Benson High School
Taking a DNA sample at the time of arrest to connect a suspect to the crime or any others is not a violation of the Fourth amendment. The amendment provides that a warrant be required by police before a invasion of property. As deemed by several court cases, bodies are not considered property. Therefore, even while the suspect lives, a warrant is not deemed necessary to collect a DNA sample, thus is not a violation of the Forth Amendment.

3/6/2013
Benson AZ
Mikayla
Sorenson
It can be a good idea for police to take DNA thats more then fingerprints but fingerprints are good enough.

3/6/2013
Benson/Arizona
Gunner
Sorensen/Benson
If someone commited a crime, then DNA should be taken for an investigation of the crime, so it would be easier for police forces to identify the suspect.

3/5/2013
benson/arizona
James
cripple/benson
takeing a suspects dna at the time of arrest should not be unconstitunional, if they did the crime then they shold pay for it, their own fault.

3/4/2013
AZ
Derek
SorensonBenson
I think that if someone does something bad enough to get arrested then they shouldnt really have anything to argue about blood samples. i think taking blood samples is not a problem.

3/4/2013
Benson AZ
Joe
Sorenson/Benson
DNA should be used in cases since it offers valid evidence about what the facts are beyond a reasonable doubt.

3/3/2013
Irving/TX
Gabe
Bradley/Nimitz
The thing about DNA, is that it can't be altered but by UV light, radiation, and certain chemicals. The time of taking of DNA won't alter the results, so why try and rush things? DNA is more accurate, but unless there is probable cause, there is no reason for our penal system to jump to taking DNA, and if it is taken, the system should need to acquire DNA from an individual

3/1/2013
Benson/Benson High School
Krystal
Sorensen/Benson
I think that taking a DNA sample at the time of arrest is an excellent idea. It helps to determine right away whether the suspect should be convicted if they are innocent. I don't think the sample should be added to a database unless the suspect is convicted.

3/1/2013
Irving, TX
TJ
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
I think it would be a great and more precise course of action for police to take DNA samples when they arrest a suspect. This way if the case involves a rape or a murder, the police will have the information, if needed, to convict the suspect at the site of the arrest. This helps speed up the process of conviction and prevent from false convictions. Having DNA samples taken at the arrest is a good idea.

3/1/2013
Irving/TX
Kenia
Bradley/ Nimitz HS
I believe that DNA samples should only be taken after a person is convicted of a serious crime. If it's taken beforehand then it would be a clear violation of the individuals rights. It could be noted down as optional for the person during the time of the arrest. If the person arrested has nothing to hide than they should be able to choose to get their DNA collected only under their consent.

3/1/2013
Irving/Texas
Delaney
Bradley/ Nimtiz
DNA testing upon arrest is against the 4th amendment, and the 5th Amendment because it prevents people from getting fair treatment under the law. Not everyone who is arrested is guilty of the crime they are accused of. DNA sampling should require a warrant at all times unless offered freely. Now it is, however, a good idea to take DNA from anyone convicted of any crime felony or otherwise.

3/1/2013
Benson/ AZ
Rhiannon
Sorenson/Benson
If their DNA is not taken forecefully, I think it's fine. If this helps criminals come to justice than so be it. Our judicial system is flawed, and it will never be perfect but being able to identify people other than looks will help keep innocent people away from unjust rulings.

3/1/2013
Benson/Arizona
Shawn
Mr. Sorenson/Benson High School
I think that it is unconstitutional to take DNA at the time of an arrest, because all citizens have the right to a fair trial. The DNA could give the prosecution more evidence against them, and this doesn't seem fair at first. I do however believe though that the person being arrested should plead the 5th in order to swerve clear of such a thing as taking DNA to allow more evidence to be used and presented against them.

3/1/2013
Benson, Arizona
Ashley S.
Benson High School
I think this is just a precaution and doesn't seem unconstitutional to me. If finger prints are taken during every booking then what's wrong with also taking a DNA swab? I think nothing is wrong with it, it would help convict a person of a crime much faster and also make sure that it is accurate. I think that you are innocent what are you hiding? If you have nothing to hide then why not just do it.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
Elena
Mr. Sorenson / Benson High School
In all ways of looking at it, I don't think taking a simple DNA test is unconstitutional. In most cases, arrests are made because of at least one piece of incriminating evidence that places them in the action of a crime. For serious crimes such as rape or assault, I find it especially necessary to be able to have that suspect's DNA if it can pin the crime rightfully. DNA testing also cancels out other suspects for that crime immediately and there wouldn't be further investigation to false leads. There's a reason we have DNA testing and it should be used in all respects since it causes no bodily harm to the suspect and sometimes doesn't even involve a swab on the cheek, and is taken from a cup or cigarette instead. It's not unusual or invasive for the suspect, is the point, and if their is a right reason for suspicion, DNA samples are necessary without doubt.

3/1/2013
AZ
Emily
Benson
in order to prove that the person is truley guilty then they may have a need for the perons DNA. if the suspect is innocent then they should have no problem giving up one strand of hair or a blood sample or something. the only way they would fight it is if they were guilty of something. and if they were arrested for the crime then there is probable cause so it is not unconstitutional to get a dna strand from someone who was arrested.

3/1/2013
Benson Arizona
Allison
Mr Sorenson/ Benson High School
I believe that taking a DNA test without reasonable cause or permission is unconstitutional. I believe that if it is something minor, the suspect shouldn't have to give a DNA sample. If they are later convicted for something more serious, then a DNA sample may be taken as ordered/permitted by the court.

3/1/2013
Benson
Morgan
Sorenson
I think that taking a DNA test from a suspect without warrant is a violantion of rights. However I think that if collecting DNA from high profile suspects allows for a criminal to be caught then it is perfectly alright. If a criminal is connect to another crime and then convicted of that crime due to DNA testing, then it kills two birds with one stone.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
Abbey
Sorenson
I think that it should be okay for DNA to be taken as long as the suspect agrees because it may lead to the solving of other connected crimes. If the suspect disagrees, then a warrant should be issued.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
Evan.
Benson High
Collection Someones DNA at the time of the arrest is unconstitutional. When most people are "arrested" or booked there's hardly any evidence against them they are just suspect until proven guilty, Police should have to get a warrant to take DNA samples from a suspect because if they are judged innocent they will be in the police data base and will be considered a possible criminal by employers. Or Future cases they might incur against them or if they are a witness to someones behalf their testament might be tron out.

3/1/2013
Benson ,Arizona
Jacob
Sorensen / Benson High School
I believe that taking a DNA test should not be requeired due to a bunch of causes . First of all police officers should not have any right to touch another human body like that if it is something minor . The most i think that they should be alowed to do is have people take a breath alizer . Some people get sewrious panic attacks and it put them under a lot of distress . If they were to be able to do that then they should be notice that they are going t'o have to be taken to a local hospital to get there blood taken by some one certified . So no they shouldnt be able too.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
kayla
sorenson
i believe DNA testing should constantly happen, DNA testing is just like getting your fingerprinting. i completely disagree that its an invasion of your privacy, raping someone is invasion of privacy! and we need to find those people who murder and rape before it happens to someone else. there should be no way that you have to have a warrant just for someone to DNA test you.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
Sabrina
Sorence/ Benson High Shcool
I think they have the right to take DNA right away. If your not doing anything bad then you have nothing to worry about. But driving while under the influence is illiagal and dangerous and taking DNA is the only way to find out.

3/1/2013
Benson/AZ
David
Marv Sorenson/Benson High School
No, this is not unconstitutional because in order to protect and uphold the common wellfare of the people, it is neccessary to be able to find the correct criminals to a crime both quickly and efficiently.

3/1/2013
Benson, AZ
Alyssa
Sorenson
I believe DNA samples should be taken at the time of arrest with the suspects permission. If the suspect refuses then there should have to be a warrant for it.

3/1/2013
Irving/Tx
Adrian
Bradley/Nimitz
I completely disagree with the argument that was brought up by King's lawyers. The 4th amendment was not violated by taking his DNA after arrest. If this was true, every police officer would have to go through the process of getting a search warrant in order to do a pat-down of someone that they arrested. It is exceeding the extreme that a police officer would have to risk his safety by not checking what a suspect has in his pockets because the officer needs to get a search warrant before his search. DNA sampling is a more precise way of finding out who committed a crime than taking fingerprints. In fact, DNA analysis has proven the innocence of many. In order to help police departments solve crimes. DNA samples should be taken at the time of arrest. If the samples are taken after conviction, many criminals could go free without every paying for the crimes they committed.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Monica A.
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA samples should be taken at the time of an arrest. The person pay never be convicted and they could of possibly committed a serious crime. DNA sampling is similar as taking someone's fingerprints. Taking someone's DNA isn't the same as searching a home and it requiring a warrant. DNA collection doesn't violate the fourth amendment. Honestly, it wouldn't be such a big deal if you have nothing to hide.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Grace
Bradley/Nimitz
America is a big country and bigger things come with more responsibilities. Crime rates shoot up and we need more cops, sheriffs, police, and troopers to roam the streets to extinguish the flames. DNA samples should be taken on the arrest site because if someone was arrested for murder, I would want to be thorough and not let this guy loose. DNA sampling may be more of a pain but to me, it doesn't seem the same as fingerprinting. Yes, it's true. No one in the world has the same fingerprints as an individual, but there are ways to get rid of fingerprints. There may be ways to get rid of DNA, but DNA is much easier to track. These criminals have lost pretty much their right to do things at the moment they committed their crime. If they are worried about police and investigators taking their DNA, then they shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. If a criminal has the time to think about their rights and what they don't want the cops to do, then they should have thought about the consequences that follow their crime like taking their DNA samples.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Joshua B
Bradley/Nimitz
This is very unconstintutional. If the police take your DNA and put it into the system then it would be there for ever I mean arent fingerprints enough. Thats you DNA its a part of you and it tells everything about you i just think that is too much.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Cody
Bradley/Nimitz
Taking a suspect's DNA is constitutional. The arresting officer had to have probable cause to arrest that person. Taking DNA is the same as taking someone's fingerprints. Most criminals are repeat offenders. So if they take DNA from someone, it could solve many other investigations. It makes for a faster investigation time and it makes America safer. Searching someone's house and taking someone's DNA are completely different. It does not violate the 4th amendment and arresting officers should begin taking DNA samples more often.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
ernesto
Ms.MalcomNImitz6
The government taking a DNA to check every people, that who have take a blood at the crime. If people not taking a DNA sample, there will be a problem of the year who have rights of this. Government isn't going to be out and not give all of their records.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Tasia
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz Hs
The government taking DNA samples from suspects during a serious booking is a good idea. In my opinion this will save them alot of time becuase alot of suspects that commit serious crimes are repeat offenders, Also, I feel that most people wont have a problem with giving up their DNA unless they really did commit a serious crime. Taking someones DNA isn't taking away from their privacy it's just like getting finger printed. Also on top of all of that the government isn't going out and giving up all oof their records.

2/28/2013
Benson/Arizona
Dylan L
Sorensen/Benson
I think that it is in a way but the person should have options. If they dont want DNA taken then they go to jail. they have had to do something pretty bad for the cops to take the DNA. With that said they can get DNA easy becuase it is not illegal to pick some hair off the ground!

2/27/2013
Benson/Arizona
Brandon
Sorensen/Benson
DNA is an even bigger help to law enforcement than finger prints and should be collected if there is already a solid reason for arrest. Police should be able to take a skin graft of the criminal if it would help solve a case for all I care.

2/27/2013
Irving/Texas
Samantha N. S.
Bradley/Nimitz
Taking an individual's DNA sample is not much different then taking their fingerprint, which is perfectly legal, and it is not intrusive or violating in any way. It is a more helpful use of evidence in linking people to a crime scene, and more beneficial and advantageous than a fingerprint. Taking a sample of DNA and searching a home are different- searching a home is intrusive to an individual's personal life and privacy, whereas swabbing for saliva is not. Obtaining DNA samples is quick and vital for solving serious crimes and does not infringe on the suspect's “privacy”- it simply exposes any past crimes committed, and allows the opportunity to convict on any possible future crimes. Adding a suspect's DNA to a federal database upon arrest is beneficial to the nation, and the safety and justice of its citizens. It will increase the amount of DNA samples saved/filed into the database, allowing them to be connected to any past- or possibly even any future- crimes.

2/26/2013
Irving/Texas
Elyssa
Bradley/Nimitz
Taking DNA from anyone convicted of a felony is not unconstitutional. The Government as well as our law enforcement's job is to ensure the safety of every citizen. Mandatory DNA test are ensuring the safety of the public, it would be different if they were taking DNA from a person who was pulled over for speeding 8 miles over the speed limit or for failure of paying a ticket. Imagine if everyone who committed a felony had to give DNA, how many crimes they could connect suspects too, we could finally end this drug war because the people who commit felony's probably have committed other crimes too. Fingerprints and DNA are really close to each other, except DNA is more precise and accurate than fingerprints considering you can change your DNA. DNA is not the same as searching a house without a warrant, if the police search your home without a warrant than they’re invading your privacy but DNA test aren’t invading your privacy because you leave your DNA everywhere and anywhere you go. Depending on the situation DNA test do not violate the 4th amendment, if you have nothing to hide taking a DNA test doesn’t matter.

2/26/2013
Irving/Texas
Zachery
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think there is any problem with DNA samples being taken at the time of an arrest. It really does help in connecting with other crimes that person may have committed. I honestly believe it is the same exact concept as if your finger prints were being taken, it is not against your rights or unconstitutional. Taking DNA samples and looking in a persons home are totally two different things. Your home is where you keep your private assets and what not, taking DNA is not. If taking DNA samples is a problem and people think there should be a warrant. So no, then shouldn't the same people think you need a warrant to take a persons finger prints. If taking a persons DNA violates a persons Fourth Amendment, then taking DNA samples from other things before a convection, to convict a person, should also violate the Fourth Amendment.

2/26/2013
Irving/TX
Alexis
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA should be taken at the time of the arrest. Taking DNA is equal to have fingerprints taken. By taking DNA it's another form of identifucation. Like your fingerprints, DNA is main source for connecting indviduals to he crime and can prove one's innocence.Those are innocent will have nothing to hide and those who are guilty will not have a chance to use the loopholes within our system to escape the consequences of their actions.

2/26/2013
Irving, Texas
Timothy B.
Bradley/Nimitz
Just as the case of Mapp v. Ohio established the inadmissibility of evidence obtained without a warrant, it seems there will be a new case that shows the obvious fact that DNA evidence taken without a warrant is inadmissible. Now, that is not to say that a person who willingly gives up DNA for the purpose of ruling themselves out of a case is presenting inadmissible evidence, but DNA that is forcibly obtained at the arrest of a person is unconstitutional—the fact that DNA may not necessarily be considered property is irrelevant. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated.” Along with a list of other things that a person has a right to be secure in, the Fourth Amendment lists security of person as a definite right. Therefore, it is obvious that the seizure of DNA without consent is unconstitutional. Though it seems that the benefits that stem from finding a criminal or linking them to other crimes through DNA are obvious, it is unconscionable to violate the constitution and a person's privacy for the convenience of not having to wait for a warrant. We force officers to obtain warrants before being allowed to enter our homes and seize evidence. Why should we allow them to invade our bodies and steal the ostensible blueprint of ourselves without the same process of review?

2/25/2013
Irving/Texas
April K
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA samples should be taken at the time of arrest and would not be unconstitutional. DNA sampling is pretty much the same a fingerprinting because an identification is made and connected to a crime with both the sample and the print. Taking a suspect's DNA is not the same as searching a home which requires a warrant. DNA collection before a conviction does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because fingerprinting does not violate that amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, but this would not be unreasonable and because of all the good it could do to bring criminals to their consequences. The DNA sampling is a very simple and harmless process; it is not like the suspect would have to draw blood which is a frightening experience to some people with fear and pain of needles.

2/25/2013
Benson/Arizona
Amanda
Mr. Sorensen/Benson High School
No because if they are innocent they wouldn't have anything to hide

2/25/2013
Irving/Texas
April S.
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA should be taken at the time of an arrest. If a murder or rape have happened and they are looking for the person that did it, they can easily compare the DNA of people to the databases. Fingerprinting and DNA are similar but not the same. Fingerprints can be inconclusive if they are smudged or only partial prints, but DNA will either match or not match. Searching someone's home has to do with personal property. DNA is not personal property it is within the body. If we treated DNA like property, then we would have to treat fingerprinting at times of getting license and when someone goes to jail as the same kind of thing. If collecting DNA from people who have been arrested is against then Fourteenth Amendment, then we shouldn't be able to collect it from a crime scene and use it for evidence in a court room either because that would be going against the criminal's right to the Fourteenth Amendment as well.

2/25/2013
Irving/Texas
Darian
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA samples should be taken at the time of a arrest. Taking this DNA samples at the time of arrest will help law enforcement agencies connect criminals to other crimes. DNA sampling isn't the same as fingerprinting its better. Taking someones DNA you shouldn't have to need a warrant at the time of the arrest. The only people that are against taking DNA are usually the guilty party. With police taking DNA from people at the time of arrest will help cut down on time on looking for people and connecting them to crimes they have already committed.

2/24/2013
Irving/Texas
Giancarlo
Bradley/Nimitz
Protecting society is the priority of law enforcement. A DNA sample would not be unconstitutional. A warrant should not be needed to take a simple sample. This action should be done at an arrest to show enforcers your crimes. To better our communities and cities, this big action will be needed. Every citizen has their own fingerprint but a DNA collection can essentially show a lot more. What ever crime a human may have made, those felonies will follow that person because it will be linked to them.

2/24/2013
Irving/Texas
Yessica
Bradley/Nimitz
Taking DNA samples should not bother anyone unless they are guilty. Yet the samples should only be taken if the person has committed a serious crime, therefore if they want to attack and commit a crime again they have a warning signal knowing that the authority has their DNA sample. If giving finger prints are normal then giving DNA shouldn’t matter, because just like fingerprints they are unique and completely individual. I believe the security of this nation is important therefore there is no need to have a warrant if the person is innocent then there shouldn’t be a problem obtaining a DNA sample.

2/24/2013
Irving/Texas
Alan
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA samples should be taken at time of arrest. Taking DNA samples is basically like giving a fingerprint except it is a lot more complex and can better identify the criminal. If people don't want their DNA taken, then they should not be committing crimes that get them arrested. Humans leave DNA everywhere, like hairs and saliva from eating or drinking at places. Many criminals counter the fingerprint-taking by using gloves when they commit crimes, but they leave DNA behind. Criminals are likely to keep committing crimes if they get away with a few, so having their DNA could guarantee the criminal is convicted of previous crimes done and not only the recent one.

2/22/2013
Irving/Texas
Helen
Bradley/Nimitz
Taking your DNA when you are a suspect is not unconstitutional because it is not invasive. The truth is that in order to protect our society our government has taken many liberties over the past decade. Taking a DNA sample would not violate anyone's rights and it would help to better protect our cities.

2/21/2013
Irving/Texas
Leslie
Bradley /Nimitz
DNA samples should be take on the time of the arrest because its just like taking your fingerprint . DNA will not harm you unless your are convicted . Because the police having that type of proof of who you are will bring many of the cases that are still floating around to an end to a solution if DNA samples are taken. Police has more chances to find a criminal with DNA samples because suspects always leaves many types of evidence ,and DNA will be a faster match. Taking the DNA of a suspect does not need a warrant or is not the same as searching your home, because its something with come sense for example , when the suspects leaves evidence of blood or fingerprints ,the police does not go and looks for the suspects and ask for permission to get all the evidence from the scene .NO , that doesn't happen the police just comes in that moment and gathers all the possible evidence in order to find the suspect. So taking the DNA is not the same as searching a home. And taking samples of DNA doesn't not violet any amendment.

2/21/2013
Irving/Texas
Jessica W.
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA samples should be taken during the time of arrest. I do not believe that it is the same as fingerprinting, however I think it is a good idea because we can keep track of the criminals better and can prevent confusion when a fingerprint is hard to make out. It is not the same as searching a home and does not require a warrant because it is not a breach of privacy but a means of keeping better track of criminals. I can see why people would say that it violates the Fourth Amendment, because it does violate a persons privacy, but in this case safety of the citizens that this would be permitting is way more important than one persons privacy.

2/21/2013
Irving/Texas
Steven H
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA samples should be taken at the time of arrest. The reason being that police can catch criminals for other crimes. Taking a DNA sample does no harm to the suspect. DNA sampling is the same as fingerprinting, it's just a more complex version. DNA is your identity and your home is your property, therefore DNA sampling does not require a warrant. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by taking a DNA sample before conviction.

2/21/2013
Irving/Texas
Misael
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA is something that is inherently yours. Nobody should have that taken away without a conviction first. As soon as you are convicted by a jury of your peers then you lose the right to your DNA but not before. So obviously taking someones DNA on arrest is legally and morally wrong and should be prohibited. DNA is sampling is completely different than fingerprints because it has your genetic code in it. Someone could use that information to harm someone. Therefore the only way to get DNA evidence should be through a warrant only.

2/21/2013
Irving/Texas
Maddie
Bradley/Nimitz
DNA samples should be taken at the time of arrest. It is not an invasion of privacy if the suspect knows he or she is innocent. A guilty party would say that giving a DNA sample is unconstitutional because they do not want to get caught. DNA sampling is no different than fingerprinting. They both define us as individuals and everyone's are different. Taking DNA is not the same as searching a home. Searching a home leaves a person vulnerable-they are opening up their lives to the search party. Giving DNA is very different because the police or detectives don't know what your family looks like or what type of dog you have based on a DNA sample. The Fourth Amendment is not being violated if a DNA test is taken before conviction.

2/21/2013
Irving/TX
Kelly
Bradley/Nimitz
Taking someone's DNA at the tme of an arrest is a violation of the 4th ammendment. However, I do not see anything wrong with it. It does interfere with a person's privacy, but if you have nothing to hide then I do not see a problem. I do not think they need to take DNA if a person gets pulled over for something minor. Like a speeding ticket or your headlight being out. If you are commiting burglary, rape, murder, etc. I think it will be helpful for law enorcement to help find the subject easier. DNA sampling is a good idea.

2/20/2013
Sidney/MT
Cody
Faulhaber/SHS
I believe they should not be able to take DNA samples from anyone except for more then probable cause, they must know that they have drugs in there system or on crime for something else. The law also has to know what is wrong with them not just take DNA it does not take search and seizure laws

2/20/2013
Sidney/Montana
Lane
Mr. Faulhaber
Yes, Police should be able to take suspects DNA in serious crimes such as murder and rape. The DNA samples can make connecting evidence to a certain suspect much easier.

2/20/2013
Sidne/MT
LaShell
Faulhaber/SHS
In all aspects i really dont see anything wrong with this. It is almost the same as getting your fingerprints taken. it would go into a database that way it wouldnt have to be done more then once. I dont see why this offends anyone unless you were guilty of the crime. its not like they are going to find something your keeping secret like you would in your house. Its your DNA it shows nothing of you or who you are it only shows weather or not you were at the scene of the crime. So whats the problem with that?

2/20/2013
Irving/Texas
Wesley
Bradley/Nimitz
Truly, it appears that the only people who have a huge problem with taking DNA samples are those who are guilty. Nevertheless, we as humans leave our DNA everywhere: our saliva on straws, loose hair strands on the ground, dead skin falling everywhere. Although DNA is unique to only one person, it is impossible to conceal it or keep it in private. Thus, I see no problem with taking a DNA sample at the time of arrest. The sample is used for documentation and to see if it is connected to other crimes. This is in no way different from fingerprinting, and its purpose is in no way a violation of the Fourth Amendment because I believe DNA is not something that can be titled as private property. If you are truly innocent, then you should have no problem giving up a DNA sample. It appears that criminals are just grasping for straws that will lead to their unjust exoneration.

2/20/2013
crane/MT
matt
Paulhaber/SHS
No unless they have a warent they are sezing something of ones person their for they are ilegely serching and sezing some thing that they dont have a warent for takeing their fingerprints is ok do to the fact it is used to ceep track of the person being arested.

2/19/2013
Irving/Tx
Samantha S
Bradley/Nimitz
Taking a persons finger prints in okay because that way they can always be tracked down, and are already arrested, which means they will be put down some how in the governments system. However, I think taking a person DNA is almost like stripping them from their constitutional rights. In our country when you7 commit a crime and then are arrested, it’s the governments job to prove you guilty or you can walk. Taking a DNA sample for a person that has been arrested is taking evidence which had not been found but taken from the possible criminal.

2/15/2013
Bellevile/NY
Charles
Colby/BHCS
I see nothing wrong with taking the DNA of a person during processing of an arrest. The police having someone's DNA on file can help if a person who has already comitted a felony does something again. This can help because people who have done wrong and got away with it can be found if they so a smaller crime.

Related News
Related Resources
Share