The Case Of Maryland V King

art. IV). The Supreme Court argued this case with the underlying assumption that the appropriate use of a search is decided by how intrusive the process is and how important the information is to the government. The cheek swabbing for the DNA was found to be minimally invasive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emphasized the importance of the information to the government in identifying criminals and criminal history. Furthermore, he described the DNA test as a more efficient way of identifying convicts, just like photos and fingerprints. He believed that it is a very useful way of putting the right people behind bars, and it is not invasive enough to violate the Fourth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia proposed a dissent, arguing that the “Fourth Amendment categorically forbids suspicionless searches justified only by the government’s interest in detecting crime” (“Maryland v. King”). In other words, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t allow for searches without a cause, and there is no evidence of the suspect committing previous crimes. Additionally, Justice Scalia declared the use of DNA evidence to be “ineffective and redundant” (“MARYLAND v. KING”). Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Ginsburg joined Scalia in her dissent, but in the end, the court ruled that this use of DNA is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment by a 5-4

Krimsky, Sheldon.Simoncelli, Tania. 2011. “Using DNA for Justice” Pp 234.-239 in Rethinking the Color Line, 5th Edition, edited by Charles Gallagher. New York, NY: McGraw

This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.

Genetic profiling is a contemporary issue relating to the individual and technology which restricts access to unbiased decisions and privacy. Genetic profiling interferes with the individuals bodily, genetic and behavioural privacy, as it can be used for the benefit of identifying bodies to using the results of a DNA test to choose whether to employ one individual over another, due to future concerns. It can easily be argued that genetic profiling is in the need of law reform as a result of legal implications and the lack of individual’s rights.

King appealed his case, stating that the Maryland DNA Collection Act violated the Fourth Amendment, meaning he is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Maryland DNA Collection Act is legitimate and the Fourth Amendment allows the police to have the right to draw blood, and scrape underneath fingernails, and use a breathalyzer test for the lungs.

The Fourth Amendment gives United States citizens the right of protection from unlawful searches and seizures. Recently, in the case Maryland v. King the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of DNA during the booking process is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The ruling by the Supreme Court has to be further evaluated and questioned as it raises questions as to what is covered under the Fourth Amendment and if a person is allowed that right while in custody. Vikram Iyengar in his law review article ‘Maryland v. King: The case for uniform, nationwide DNA collection and DNA database laws in the United States’ will allow a closer look into how this ruling may cause a conflict with state laws. The ruling in this case will spur many

DNA is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.

The case, Murray vs. Pearson had been attacking the school legally since that summer and successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray.

It is important to note that Justice Alito, who was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan, in his concurring opinion, criticized “the Court’s reliance on the law of trespass” to reach its’ conclusion. Justice Alito suggested the test of whether a search had been conducted should revolve around whether the “respondent’s reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.” Justice Alito concluded that the long-term monitoring by law enforcement alone constituted a search.

Understandably, many concerns arise when such confidential and sensitive personal data are stored indefinitely on a DNA database. Who could guarantee that this information would not be used in ways that threaten people’s individual privacy and rights and that of their families? Access to an individual’s forensic DNA profile can track the individual or his relatives, and reveal more detailed information about his health. This carries many serious implications to the individual. However, there are currently no international safeguards that would protect people’s privacy and rights and prevent miscarriages of justice.

While DNA evidence can be very useful in criminal investigations, it is unnecessary to establish a DNA databank for all citizens. Such a databank would go against citizens’ rights, especially that of being “innocent until proven guilty.” Currently, a person may not be investigated in a crime unless there is evidence strongly suggesting that person as a suspect. If a citizen DNA databank were established, all citizens could be investigated for crimes indirectly. There is no reason to treat innocent people with such suspicion. Those who establish themselves as good citizens should be allowed to keep their privacy.

With bounding advances in the field of genomics, genetic privacy has sparked a controversy. In the 1980s, the Human Genome Project was established to sequence the entirety of the human genome. The first draft of this project was published in Nature in February, 2001, about 10 percent short of completion (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2015). Originally, scientists had hypothesized that there was anywhere from 50,000 to 140,000 genes. However, after the release of the first draft and the later completion of the full sequence in April of 2003, it was revealed that there were actually about 20,500 genes (NIH, 2015). Since April 2003, the structure, organization, and function of these many genes has begun to be better understood (NIH, 2015). As genetics moved forward, there was hope of application in the fields of criminal justice and medicine. According to the International Homicide Investigators Association, 40,000 unidentified deaths occur in the United States annually (Willing 2006). That means every year, 40,000 people have families who remain unsure whether their missing loved ones are still alive. If the justice system had access to a national genetic database, this issue could be resolved; if all citizens could provide the justice system with samples of their DNA, criminal cases and missing persons cases could be solved at a more efficient rate. Furthermore, if doctors had access to every patient’s genetic information, they could be informed about possible health

Second, Government are invading our personal privacy. Instead of getting all the people’s DNA. They should only get criminal’s DNA. This will ensure that innocent people won’t get falsely accused. “Collection DNA data of every citizen also questions the civil liberties within 2 liberal democracy and whether individual’s rights truly are protected.”(Michael Hiltzik 2011). Getting DNA from people will make them feel like they don’t have freedom that they are supposed to have freedom.

DNA databases have always been a controversial topic for not only the common people, but the governments of nations as well. DNA databases store all of the citizens’ DNA and basic genetic information on a national or international computerized system. The reasons as to why it is controversial ranges from, human rights to the risk of a security breach, and government corruption. Though the negatives vary and pose important considerations, the positives of having a database can improve the accuracy and the shorten the amount of time taken to solve crimes; and can create stronger international connections. Along with these, people also believe that rather in decreasing the security of

Imagine a world from where the second you are born, you have a sample of DNA taken, and it gets entered into a national database to ensure a safer world. For some, the thought of having something so personal and unique to you in a national system is appalling, and for others, the thought of being able to find the perpetrator of a crime easily with the help of DNA is more important to them than having private information introduced into a database. Today, while not yet universal, DNA databases are used by multiple government departments. DNA is the material in all living things that carries genetic information. It is unique for every individual, with the exception of twins, and by reading DNA, it is possible to identify someone. Human DNA