Comments on: The Disturbing Trends Series- Part 6: Taking Your DNA

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:46:29 +0000

Florence did submit to a strip search prior to entering the general population of the Burlington County jail. I understand that once in the general population and then later transferred to another facility there is an increased chance of concealing contraband. However, if you read the origins of that case, the state trooper who arrested Florence signed an affidavit waiving probable cause that Florence was carrying or concealing a weapon or contraband. Regardless, the county jail in Burlington County still conducted what amounted to a strip search. If it was so right, why did they change their policy after Florence filed suit? I understand that police and jail officials don’t know what they are getting when they arrest/admit prisoners, but using just an iota of commonsense saves a ton of dignity.

By: pseudonym

pseudonym — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 07:21:43 +0000

“Additionally, they can use the recent Florence strip search decision as justification for these laws. In that case, an arrestee was strip searched. If strip searching, absent probable cause for that strip search, is constitutional during an arrest and before introduction to a jail, then something less intrusive than a strip search- providing a hair or cheek cell sample- would certainly be constitutional.”

Your interpretation of this is a bit off. In FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL. the petitioner was not strip searched before introduction into a secure correctional facility or “jail”. The petitioner was strip searched twice once introduced into two different jails.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

Furthermore, the severity of an offense an individual is arrested for is no indicator whether or not they are concealing contraband. For the safety of inmates, prison staff, and the arrested they in many cases must be conducted. I could go into a multitude of reasons why this practice is acceptable and constitutionally sound, but I do not see the point putting that much time into it.

As far as the collection of DNA it is a unique identifier as fingerprints are. I do not see how this can violate one

By: Viet71

Viet71 — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:17:55 +0000

Arrested persons give up certain Fourth Amendment rights, as the Supreme Court has told us in Schmerber v. California (1966) and the recent Florence case.

But if one studies these cases, one learns the Court was willing to relax the Fourth Amendment in order to deal with exigent circumstances.

Taking DNA is not exigent. DNA is not going to change in a few hours like alcohol in the blood.

By: zachv

zachv — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:45:58 +0000

In the 2009 case that was then linked to the 2003 rape case by matching the fingerprints – would it be legal to convict the person based off of that evidence?

I see absolutely no distinction between fingerprinting and DNA. They both are identifiers of a single person. What distinction could there possibly be?