The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling of Arrestees

A. Patel
{"title":"The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling of Arrestees","authors":"A. Patel","doi":"10.5195/TLP.2012.105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses whether the DNA Act (which requires DNA samples from arrestees) passes constitutional muster. I argue that the act is constitutional and that if society believes the collection of DNA from arrestees violates an individual’s privacy, it should seek legislative resolution and not seek the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Throughout my analysis, I demonstrate why DNA collection is constitutional and how it is necessary. Part I of this article examines the history of DNA sampling, case law establishing an arrestee’s expectation of privacy, and the applicable Fourth Amendment tests. Part II examines the arguments for and against DNA sampling by considering case law at the state and federal level, and explores the significance of junk DNA and the treatment of abandoned DNA. Part III is the personal analysis section, which argues that the totality of circumstances test is the proper test. I apply the test to determine that there is minimal intrusion of an arrestee’s expectation of privacy through DNA sampling, a legitimate governmental interest, and that warrants are unnecessary. Further, the section demonstrates why DNA sampling is a natural progression from fingerprint collection, and the section analyzes abandoned DNA and DNA sampling. Part IV concludes the article by stating that the Fourth Amendment is not violated and that society must turn to Congress to seek greater protection.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TLP.2012.105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article addresses whether the DNA Act (which requires DNA samples from arrestees) passes constitutional muster. I argue that the act is constitutional and that if society believes the collection of DNA from arrestees violates an individual’s privacy, it should seek legislative resolution and not seek the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Throughout my analysis, I demonstrate why DNA collection is constitutional and how it is necessary. Part I of this article examines the history of DNA sampling, case law establishing an arrestee’s expectation of privacy, and the applicable Fourth Amendment tests. Part II examines the arguments for and against DNA sampling by considering case law at the state and federal level, and explores the significance of junk DNA and the treatment of abandoned DNA. Part III is the personal analysis section, which argues that the totality of circumstances test is the proper test. I apply the test to determine that there is minimal intrusion of an arrestee’s expectation of privacy through DNA sampling, a legitimate governmental interest, and that warrants are unnecessary. Further, the section demonstrates why DNA sampling is a natural progression from fingerprint collection, and the section analyzes abandoned DNA and DNA sampling. Part IV concludes the article by stating that the Fourth Amendment is not violated and that society must turn to Congress to seek greater protection.
被捕人员DNA取样的合宪性
本文将讨论DNA法案(要求从被捕者身上提取DNA样本)是否符合宪法要求。我认为该法案是符合宪法的,如果社会认为从被捕者身上收集DNA侵犯了个人隐私,它应该寻求立法解决,而不是寻求宪法第四修正案的保护。在我的整个分析中,我论证了为什么DNA收集是合乎宪法的,以及它是如何必要的。本文的第一部分考察了DNA取样的历史、确立被捕者对隐私期望的判例法以及适用的第四修正案测试。第二部分通过考虑州和联邦层面的判例法,探讨了支持和反对DNA采样的论点,并探讨了垃圾DNA的意义和废弃DNA的处理。第三部分为个人分析部分,论述了总体情况检验是一种合适的检验方法。我使用这个测试是为了确定通过DNA取样对被捕者的隐私期望的侵犯是最小的,这是合法的政府利益,搜查令是不必要的。此外,本节还演示了为什么DNA采样是指纹收集的自然过程,并分析了废弃的DNA和DNA采样。第四部分总结了这篇文章,指出第四修正案没有被违反,社会必须向国会寻求更大的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信