Its not invasive and it catches rapists and murderers. Where is the potential for abuse or harm here?
SCOTUS - Give the police your DNA!
- 03/06/2013 08:31:27 PM
955 Views
Good for Scalia. And the other three, of course.
- 03/06/2013 11:54:30 PM
622 Views
Breyer must have bumped his head the morning they wrote the decison! *NM*
- 04/06/2013 01:20:23 AM
224 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 08:50:19 AM
653 Views
Because it's a search which should be protected under the 4th Amendment.
- 04/06/2013 03:38:18 PM
614 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:05:27 PM
635 Views
Excepting fingerprints, those things are in plain sight, so not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- 10/08/2013 10:36:08 AM
513 Views
Re: Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:55:38 PM
741 Views
I dont really think it takes much care
- 06/06/2013 05:08:38 PM
689 Views
The harm is to presumption of innocence, by conviction through illegally obtained evidence.
- 10/08/2013 11:07:59 AM
646 Views
Don't know why it matters. DNA is on file. So what? Rape anybody lately? *NM*
- 04/06/2013 04:09:08 AM
274 Views
I don't have any issue with the decision; however, the possibility of abuse should be watched.
- 04/06/2013 03:11:02 PM
578 Views
I'm a lefty, and I LIKE this decision
- 11/06/2013 07:35:17 PM
616 Views
The contents of our homes are protected, but not the contents of our bodies?
- 10/08/2013 10:40:17 AM
535 Views
Scariest thing: I agreed with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Dick Cheney in the same WEEK. 
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
532 Views
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
532 Views