View original postIts not invasive and it catches rapists and murderers. Where is the potential for abuse or harm here?
What happens to DNA samples for people that are later acquitted?
And why do you suddenly trust the government to properly care for / manage DNA samples when you don't trust it to do a single, solitary, good god-damn thing ELSE properly?
SCOTUS - Give the police your DNA!
- 03/06/2013 08:31:27 PM
971 Views
Good for Scalia. And the other three, of course.
- 03/06/2013 11:54:30 PM
635 Views
Breyer must have bumped his head the morning they wrote the decison! *NM*
- 04/06/2013 01:20:23 AM
230 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 08:50:19 AM
667 Views
Because it's a search which should be protected under the 4th Amendment.
- 04/06/2013 03:38:18 PM
626 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:05:27 PM
649 Views
Excepting fingerprints, those things are in plain sight, so not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- 10/08/2013 10:36:08 AM
526 Views
Re: Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:55:38 PM
759 Views
I dont really think it takes much care
- 06/06/2013 05:08:38 PM
702 Views
The harm is to presumption of innocence, by conviction through illegally obtained evidence.
- 10/08/2013 11:07:59 AM
660 Views
Don't know why it matters. DNA is on file. So what? Rape anybody lately? *NM*
- 04/06/2013 04:09:08 AM
281 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
592 Views
I'm a lefty, and I LIKE this decision
- 11/06/2013 07:35:17 PM
629 Views
The contents of our homes are protected, but not the contents of our bodies?
- 10/08/2013 10:40:17 AM
545 Views
Scariest thing: I agreed with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Dick Cheney in the same WEEK. 
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
541 Views
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
541 Views