Overview: Supreme Court hearing arguments as to whether taking a sample of an arrested person's DNA is an illegal search/seizure - in violation of the 4th amendment.

http://news.msn.com/us/court-to-hear-ca ... e-arrested

I see it as an invasion - at least until someone is convicted of a felony crime. Thoughts?

I'm split on it. Is it really that different from taking a fingerprint? Both are used to identify suspects of crimes. Fingerprints are taken at the time of your arrest. I would likely lean towards making it only after convictions, but am truly on the fence.

As for the particular case being discussed in the article, I believe that the prosecutors screwed the pooch here. They let him plead to a lesser offense making their job easier since they had the DNA for the other crime. If they'd gotten a conviction for a felony on the first offense, then this case would have never seen the light of day.

I can see the other argument as well. Could probably be convinced/persuaded of the other side. Just see an issue with the "slippery slope" argument. If you're pulled over for a DUI can they swab your DNA?, minor traffic violation? I would see it as a 5th amendment issue as well - testifying against yourself.

They can't grown your evil twin in a lab with a fingerprint!

I was thinking the constitutionalists continually ranting about the infringement on 2nd amendment rights would be all over this?

"Constitutionalists" care about guns and homosexuals. This doesn't fit their agenda.

There really isn't much to jump on. You have a case that is going to the supreme court because of a constitutional issue with an absolutely guilty man who will likely go scott free for his crime. Even if you think it's the right course constitutionally, you have to be at least somewhat conflicted since it will let a known scumbag walk free