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
1068 Views
Good for Scalia. And the other three, of course.
- 03/06/2013 11:54:30 PM
726 Views
Breyer must have bumped his head the morning they wrote the decison! *NM*
- 04/06/2013 01:20:23 AM
269 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 08:50:19 AM
774 Views
Because it's a search which should be protected under the 4th Amendment.
- 04/06/2013 03:38:18 PM
730 Views
Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:05:27 PM
741 Views
Excepting fingerprints, those things are in plain sight, so not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- 10/08/2013 10:36:08 AM
615 Views
Re: Why?
- 04/06/2013 09:55:38 PM
863 Views
I dont really think it takes much care
- 06/06/2013 05:08:38 PM
795 Views
The harm is to presumption of innocence, by conviction through illegally obtained evidence.
- 10/08/2013 11:07:59 AM
773 Views
Don't know why it matters. DNA is on file. So what? Rape anybody lately? *NM*
- 04/06/2013 04:09:08 AM
314 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
691 Views
I'm a lefty, and I LIKE this decision
- 11/06/2013 07:35:17 PM
716 Views
The contents of our homes are protected, but not the contents of our bodies?
- 10/08/2013 10:40:17 AM
653 Views
Scariest thing: I agreed with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Dick Cheney in the same WEEK. 
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
631 Views
- 10/08/2013 10:44:50 AM
631 Views