46°
Cloudy
TUE
 72°
 47°
WED
 75°
 48°
THU
 72°
 47°
FRI
 71°
 42°
SAT
 72°
 44°

ROBINSON: On DNA, Scalia was right

  • (SCOTT STANTIS / Chicago Tribune)

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last week allowing police to compel DNA samples from persons arrested for serious offenses will solve cold cases around the country, putting dangerous criminals behind bars. But despite this clearly beneficial impact, the court's 5-4 ruling was wrong — and may be more far-reaching than we can now imagine.

The words “Antonin Scalia was right” do not flow easily for me. But the court's most uncompromising conservative, who wrote a withering dissent, was correct when he issued a dire-sounding warning from the bench: “Make no mistake about it: Because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”

The case, involving a Maryland law that mandates DNA collection, scrambled the court's ideological seating chart. Scalia, of all people, sided with the liberals; while Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, joined the conservative majority.

Maryland v. King was an appropriate test case. A man named Alonzo King was arrested in 2009 on an assault charge. Police took a DNA sample by swabbing the inside of his cheek — without obtaining a search warrant — as permitted under Maryland law. Months later, King's DNA profile was matched with evidence from a 2003 rape case. King was subsequently tried and convicted of the rape.

It's impossible not to applaud the result: A rapist who otherwise would have escaped justice was made to pay for his heinous crime. But the way this result was obtained, Scalia argued, ignores the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits most warrantless searches without reasonable suspicion, and police had no reason to suspect that King had committed the rape — or that he had committed any crime except the assault for which he had been arrested.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy accepted the state's argument that the DNA sample was actually a method of identification — like a mug shot or a set of fingerprints — and not an unreasonable search.

© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View