Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

Posted by timothy on from the welcome-to-gattica dept.

An anonymous reader writes On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a case involving the conviction of a man based solely on the analysis of his "inadvertently shed" DNA. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that this tacit approval of the government's practice of collecting anyone's DNA anywhere without a warrant will lead to a future in which people's DNA are "entered into and checked against DNA databases and used to conduct pervasive surveillance."

3 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. As the majority pointed out by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    the DNA test was no different than lifting a fingerprint left by someone. The did not force him to take a DNA test, rather he left it behind and thus no warrant is needed.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:As the majority pointed out by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anything you leave behind at a crime scene is fair game.

      What about stuff you leave behind NOT at a crime scene?

      So they got some DNA at a crime scene, but don't know whose it is. They think it might be you, but the judge denies them a warrant based on lack of evidence... so they follow you around until they see you throw away a cup, or a piece of gum, or sneeze and toss the tissue away in a public place. Then they amble up and help themselves.

      The couldn't get a warrant for your DNA, but because its impossible to live a normal and free life without shedding DNA they just had to wait a while until you left some behind.

      Whether or not that is "ok" is something that deserves national discussion.

  2. Title is BS by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

    Denial of certiorari sets no precedent. They could have rejected this case for any number of reasons, from a full calendar to the suit involving side issues which would make any ruling muddy to not liking the name of the defendant. They denied without comment.