Court Mixed on Constitutionality of Taking DNA From Arrestees
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court provided no clear indication Tuesday whether it would uphold a voter-approved measure requiring California authorities to take a DNA sample from every adult arrested on felony accusations.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments for about an hour, in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union aimed at striking down the law. The ACLU argued that DNA sampling of arrestees was an unconstitutional search and privacy breach. A lower court had refused to stop the program that has resulted in California securing a DNA database of 1.5 million people.
At least 21 states have regulations requiring suspects to give a DNA sample upon an arrest. President Barack Obama supports taking DNA when a suspect is arrested.
Judge Mylan Smith suggested he saw no difference between DNA sampling and fingerprinting, the latter of which is a staple booking practice across the United States.
“This is really a good way of identifying people. Basically, what you’re saying we have to be Luddites, that we can’t use modern technology because it’s too good?” he asked ACLU attorney Michael Risher.
“Sure, we would solve more and more crimes if we got more samples,” Risher replied. But “there has to be a line. A single arrest by a police officer is never sufficient.”
Risher added, “Our fingerprints tell nothing about us. Our DNA can tell a huge amount about us.”
William Fletcher, the only other judge to engage in the discussion, seemed troubled that the DNA was kept in a database even if the subject was acquitted, or never charged. About 100,000 persons arrested for felonies in California are ultimately cleared every year.
Fletcher also noted that the state often objects to taking DNA samples from convicts who are languishing in prison and seeking to clear their names.
“What’s the justification for keeping the DNA?” Fletcher asked California Deputy attorney General Daniel Powell.
Powell replied: “Obviously, the solution of future crimes,” adding, “I think there is a deterrent effect.”...
[Full Article]
