Supreme Court Upholds Police Taking DNA Swabs From Those Arrested

In more than half of the states in the U.S., when a person is arrested they are given a check swab to collect DNA at the same time they are fingerprinted and photographed. In those states, it is just a part of the arrest procedure. Like fingerprints, this is collected just for law enforcement purposes, and is not shared with any other entity (employers, insurance companies, etc.).

But there are those in this country who believe this is a violation of privacy, and no DNA swab should be taken or tested without a warrant issued by a judge. Recently, a case went to the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of routinely taking DNA cheek swabs of arrestees. The case was that of Alonzo King Jr. of Maryland. After being arrested for an assault, his DNA was taken and tested -- and it was later matched to the DNA from a sexual assault (a crime he was never suspected in). He was convicted of the sexual assault, and appealed the conviction.

A Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with King, and said his privacy had been violated -- since he had not been convicted of a crime when the swab was taken, and should have enjoyed a higher right of privacy than a convicted felon. Yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, and upheld the right of the state to take the DNA swab of arrestees. In a majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the court said:

"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." 

The decision was a close one -- only 5 to 4. Kennedy was joined in the majority by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Thomas. Justices in the minority were Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Scalia wrote the minority opinion, and said this procedure violated the rights of those who were truly innocent (as found later by a court).

I may be prejudiced, since most of my working life was spent in various aspects of law enforcement, but I believe the majority decision was correct. If the DNA swab is an invasion of the right to privacy, then so is the photographing and taking of fingerprints. I see no difference between the three procedures, since all three are used in the same way. And I don't believe any truly innocent person needs to be worried about a DNA swab. If it shows they committed a prior crime, then they weren't innocent, were they?

I have not been thrilled with all of this court's decisions, but they got this one right. I expect that, as a result of this decision, many more states will now incorporate the cheek swab for DNA as a regular part of the arrest procedure. And the only people that is bad for are those trying to hide a previous crime, and personally, I will shed no tears for them.

That's my opinion. Do you agree?