SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Time for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Forced DNA Collection
Can the government force people who are arrested - but not yet convicted of a crime - to give a DNA sample without a search warrant, or does that violate the Fourth Amendment? One arrestee is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this important question, and this week EFF urged the court to take the case.
Dec 29, 2011
Can the government force people who are arrested - but not yet convicted of a crime - to give a DNA sample without a search warrant, or does that violate the Fourth Amendment? One arrestee is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this important question, and this week EFF urged the court to take the case.
A federal law mandates DNA collection for those who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI analyzes the samples, and puts a profile into CODIS, a national database. Those who aren't eventually convicted of a crime can get their information removed if they request to do so, but data from other individuals remains indefinitely. In this case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Mitchell, the defendant argues that the DNA collection violates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Some judges have considered DNA profiles in the same light as fingerprints - a means of identification. But DNA is much more than that. It can reveal your family background, your current health, and your future propensity for disease, among other personal details. In the future, as technology advances, scientists will be able to read even more into DNA. Meanwhile, the government is collecting this information without warrants, and storing them in a database that's freely accessed by state and federal law enforcement agents across the country without any need for a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches and seizures of private information, and we think its protections apply to the DNA collection at issue here.
Earlier this summer, we filed a brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that this warrantless DNA collection violated the Fourth Amendment. But shortly before the case was to be argued, the defendant pleaded guilty, making the issue go away and forcing the appeals court to dismiss the case. Now, without the Supreme Court's intervention in this Third Circuit case, the blanket DNA collection from people who are not convicted of crimes continues unchecked - perhaps leading to a future where everyone's DNA is sampled, profiled, stored, and routinely accessed by government officials without suspicion of any criminal wrongdoing.
We hope the Supreme Court will take our advice, and review this complicated and controversial practice.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Rebecca Jeschke
Rebecca Jeschke is EFF's Media Relations Director and a Digital Rights Analyst, covering a broad range of issues including privacy, free speech, and intellectual property matters.
Can the government force people who are arrested - but not yet convicted of a crime - to give a DNA sample without a search warrant, or does that violate the Fourth Amendment? One arrestee is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this important question, and this week EFF urged the court to take the case.
A federal law mandates DNA collection for those who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI analyzes the samples, and puts a profile into CODIS, a national database. Those who aren't eventually convicted of a crime can get their information removed if they request to do so, but data from other individuals remains indefinitely. In this case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Mitchell, the defendant argues that the DNA collection violates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Some judges have considered DNA profiles in the same light as fingerprints - a means of identification. But DNA is much more than that. It can reveal your family background, your current health, and your future propensity for disease, among other personal details. In the future, as technology advances, scientists will be able to read even more into DNA. Meanwhile, the government is collecting this information without warrants, and storing them in a database that's freely accessed by state and federal law enforcement agents across the country without any need for a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches and seizures of private information, and we think its protections apply to the DNA collection at issue here.
Earlier this summer, we filed a brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that this warrantless DNA collection violated the Fourth Amendment. But shortly before the case was to be argued, the defendant pleaded guilty, making the issue go away and forcing the appeals court to dismiss the case. Now, without the Supreme Court's intervention in this Third Circuit case, the blanket DNA collection from people who are not convicted of crimes continues unchecked - perhaps leading to a future where everyone's DNA is sampled, profiled, stored, and routinely accessed by government officials without suspicion of any criminal wrongdoing.
We hope the Supreme Court will take our advice, and review this complicated and controversial practice.
Rebecca Jeschke
Rebecca Jeschke is EFF's Media Relations Director and a Digital Rights Analyst, covering a broad range of issues including privacy, free speech, and intellectual property matters.
Can the government force people who are arrested - but not yet convicted of a crime - to give a DNA sample without a search warrant, or does that violate the Fourth Amendment? One arrestee is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this important question, and this week EFF urged the court to take the case.
A federal law mandates DNA collection for those who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI analyzes the samples, and puts a profile into CODIS, a national database. Those who aren't eventually convicted of a crime can get their information removed if they request to do so, but data from other individuals remains indefinitely. In this case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Mitchell, the defendant argues that the DNA collection violates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Some judges have considered DNA profiles in the same light as fingerprints - a means of identification. But DNA is much more than that. It can reveal your family background, your current health, and your future propensity for disease, among other personal details. In the future, as technology advances, scientists will be able to read even more into DNA. Meanwhile, the government is collecting this information without warrants, and storing them in a database that's freely accessed by state and federal law enforcement agents across the country without any need for a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches and seizures of private information, and we think its protections apply to the DNA collection at issue here.
Earlier this summer, we filed a brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that this warrantless DNA collection violated the Fourth Amendment. But shortly before the case was to be argued, the defendant pleaded guilty, making the issue go away and forcing the appeals court to dismiss the case. Now, without the Supreme Court's intervention in this Third Circuit case, the blanket DNA collection from people who are not convicted of crimes continues unchecked - perhaps leading to a future where everyone's DNA is sampled, profiled, stored, and routinely accessed by government officials without suspicion of any criminal wrongdoing.
We hope the Supreme Court will take our advice, and review this complicated and controversial practice.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.