In a 5-4 decision on Maryland vs. King, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can indeed take your DNA sample upon arrest. It was also a decision that split across the court’s usual ideological lines: “Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.” Any time Thomas and Scalia split on a decision it’s worth taking a look at the underlying issues involved, and I hope to take a closer (albeit of the IANAL variety) look at the actually decision when it’s online and I have time. I suspect the decision may hinge on the definition of “reasonable” search and seizure.
Setting aside (for now) the niceties of constitutional interpretation, I think this is a bad decision for both privacy and limited government, with some truly Orwellian (not to mention Huxleyion) implications. As a science fiction writer, I can think of three or four dozen ways this might be abused, and a National ID card is just the tip of the iceberg. In light of the IRS scandals, having your DNA stored in a federal database is tantamount to handing it over not only to Wikileaks and Anonymous, but any left-wing interest group with a grudge and a sympathetic bureaucrat on the inside (which is essentially all of them). And I can think of a lot darker possibilities…
Tags: DNA, Maryland vs. King, Search and Seizure, Supreme Court
[…] might think that government agents would need a warrant to obtain your blood, but Maryland vs. King holds that obtaining DNA from arrested suspects is akin to fingerprinting and thus not a Fourth […]