DNA sampling should include guidelines for appropriate use

One of the most powerful tools for prosecuting criminals is DNA evidence. And now, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling has moved the concept back into the national spotlight.

A divided court ruled last week that taking DNA samples from arrestees is a reasonable police action in step with the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring probable cause before warrants are issued.

The question is, what is reasonable when it comes to DNA samples, and what is an invasion of privacy?

Thanks to scientific advancements, we have the ability to link suspects to crime scenes through biological material left behind be it a drop of blood, sweat, saliva or a piece of hair.

Any biological material contains that persons unique genetic blueprint, tightly wrapped up in the double helix of a DNA molecule, according to HowStuffWorks.com.

The only other way someone can have DNA just like yours is if you have an identical twin otherwise, that blueprint is unique to you.

But DNA is not an absolute indicator of someones guilt. What if the person was at the scene earlier, but left before the crime actually occurred? There have also been cases of DNA fraud, where criminals have planted fake DNA samples at the scene to throw detectives off.

As it currently stands, all 50 states and the federal government take DNA samples from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databases. Justices were divided, however, over whether DNA collection could come before a suspect is convicted and without a judge issuing a warrant, according to The Associated Press.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the courts majority opinion for last weeks ruling, argued, "Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

Excerpt from:
DNA sampling should include guidelines for appropriate use