The U.S. Supreme Court

While I may lean a tad toward the conservative side of the political equation overall, my beliefs are actually spread across a wide spectrum.  I'm actually quite liberal in my thoughts on social issues but pretty much a fiscal conservative.  It's a hard balance sometimes with complex issues, but I try to remember something that Cicero wrote.  "The welfare of the people is the highest law."

One of the things I do believe in fervently is the Bill of Rights and those rights it articulates as being ours.  The decision of SCOTUS in a case regarding a Maryland law that gives police the right to swab anyone for DNA, who is arrested for a "serious crime", upheld the law.  The 5-4 decision is drawing a lot of criticism from those who consider themselves civil libertarians.  My first thought was they are right.  The idea that someone could be convicted of any crime other than the one they were arrested for, based on a DNA swab before they had been charged, tried and convicted seemed to me to violate the right to be free from unreasonable search.

Then I thought about it some more on the way home from trivia (we won!) tonight and I came to a different conclusion.  So that you don't prejudge my thinking based on just the comparison I'm about to make, I'm leaving the acronym DNA out of the scenario I'm going to create.

A person is arrested for a serious crime.  You can put in any crime you wish that fits the definition.  They are cuffed and stuffed into a police cruiser after being read their rights, and taken to the police station.  At some point after they arrive there, an officer takes their ________ and it will be recorded in a computer database.

They make bail.  The DA decides the case against them is weak, but good enough to take to trial.  At trial, evidence is introduced that proves beyond any doubt (not just reasonable doubt) that the suspect is NOT guilty of the crime they were arrested for suspicion of.  They are set free.

Then, outside the courtroom, two police officers from another state appear and arrest the suspect again.  This time for a 16 year old murder which their __________ proves they committed.  The only reason they were never caught was because no one had ever taken their __________.  Another trial is held, this time resulting in conviction.  They are sentenced to life without parole and will never see freedom again.

Make sense?  Good.  Now, instead of filling in the blank above with "DNA", instead fill it with the word "fingerprints".  I would love it if one of those who is critical of this decision by SCOTUS would please explain to me how DNA taken from a cheek swab subsequent to an arrest is any different from fingerprints taken subsequent to an arrest.  In my mind there is no difference.  Putting ink on someone's fingers and then taking an imprint (or using a computer scanner) is no more invasive in my mind than swabbing the inside of someone's cheek.

Probable cause is required for a search warrant.  It is required for an arrest warrant.  You can't take someone's blood or urine and use it to convict them of a crime unless they consented to the taking of something from their body.  But what is taken in a DNA swab just isn't the same.  It doesn't require a needle.  At some point, technology will probably find a way to get DNA from just scanning a person from the outside.  Then, any objection to treating DNA any differently than fingerprints will truly disappear. 

I say SCOTUS got this one right.