[ooyala code=”c1M2Y1YzrAZn4gfYoUwTmfVw6xxzgV6k” player_id=”99b31ca60977447aac65383d61b8503b”]
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A controversial decision by the Supreme Court Monday upholds the practice of allowing police to take your DNA sample if you’re arrested.
Opponents say it’s an invasion of privacy.
Part of the controversy surrounds from whom DNA samples can be taken. Samples can be taken from people who have been arrested, but not necessarily convicted of a crime. Supporters say the swabbing practice is just like the 21st century version of fingerprinting.
Monday the Supreme Court ruled police can collect DNA from suspects who’ve been arrested even if they have not yet been convicted of a crime. No warrant is needed.
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote that it’s a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The five-justice majority said taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is like fingerprinting and photographing.
The ruling stems from…
View original post 121 more words