The Fourth Amendment: The Appropriate Use Of DNA Evidence

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.

Procedural: The United States and Georgia Constitutions allow the Georgia Department of Corrections to compel incarcerated felons to submit saliva samples for DNA profiling, pursuant with O.C.G.A. section 24-4-60. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the Georgia Department of Corrections. The statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the search and seizure provisions of the Georgia Constitution, or the felon’s rights to privacy under the United States or Georgia Constitutions, and was affirmed.

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

In my opinion, I do not think that police collecting DNA from a person during the booking process is a violation against the fourth amendment. I don't think taking DNA at booking violates their rights because how else are cold cases going to get solved. I mean hey if you get caught doing a petty crime like a stick up or store robbery and they happen to run your DNA and it was found in a murder case, I think that murder tops any other crime why should they lose that case because DNA was obtain at booking and not considered legal. More cases would be solved if more states would do DNA swab at booking its only

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

DNA’s certainty is dramatized in today’s society, which gives lay people the impression that DNA is infallible; however, in the case of Wayne Butler and others, the fallibility of DNA is exposed. Wayne Butler was accused of sadistically murdering Natasha Douty who was found beaten to death on Brampton Island in 1983. Wayne Butler was vacationing on Brampton Island during the timeframe of the murder; however, claimed to be jogging during this time. After submitting a blood test, Butler was eliminated as a suspect. However, Butler was arrested in 2001 for this murder because semen, which was found on the towel at the crime scene, was found to be a match. The John Tonge Centre performed a DNA test on the evidence on the towel. Butler was found innocent after it was identified that the John Tonge Centre mislabeled the test tubes containing the crime scene evidence. (“DNA Evidence”) This case proves that DNA testing may not be as reliable as we think.

Should Federal Agents be allowed to collect DNA from anyone arrested? This is a controversial issue. In my opinion, DNA is a very powerful and useful tool because many sex crimes go unsolved because of lack of evidence, but if federal agents can look in a database where DNA samples are stored and compare it to anyone who was arrested especially those who committed sex crimes more crimes would be solved. Many say DNA testing violates suspects rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. DNA testing has toppled the way federal agents gather evidence in various criminal cases, particularly assault and homicide and thus had an expansive effect on a lot of people past cases. In this paper I am going to address

Perhaps the most critical improvement in criminal examination since the happening to one of a kind finger impression ID is the usage of DNA development to convict punks or get rid of persons as suspects. DNA examinations on spit, skin tissue, blood, hair, and semen can now be reliably used to association guilty parties to wrongdoings. Dynamically recognized in the midst of the past 10 years, DNA development is in the blink of an eye by and large used by police, prosecutors, shield course, and courts in the United

I am sided with the right to allow DNA Analysis for a crime a suspect is convicted for committing but is pledging not guilty in the trial. About 0.5% convictions of crime are the innocent serving jail time in prison or death row and are not even the actual suspect of the crime scene putting other people at fault of those who have not done any harm. This even violates an individual’s right of freedom as they are being wrongfully accused and imprisoned. These people who are being accused should have the right to be proven they are not the suspect by true accurate DNA analysis over false eyewitness or misidentification as even it can be used as an importance of pulling vital clues regarding the perpetrator of a crime in which a victim’s condition is unrecognizable to family or friends.

DNA evidence is extremely helpful in criminal trials not only because it can determine the guilt of a suspect, but also because it can keep innocent people from going to jail. The suspect must leave a sample of their DNA at the crime scene in order for testing to occur, but DNA can be found in the form of many things such as semen, blood, hair, saliva, or skin scrapings. According to Newsweek, "thousands of people have been convicted by DNA's nearly miraculous ability to search out suspects across space and time… hundreds of innocent people have also been freed, often after years behind bars, sometimes just short of the death chamber" (Adler ). Though some may think it is a waste of time to go

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem

investigations both past and present. It can be used to identify criminals when there is evidence

The Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for the search and seizure of personal property, but no warrant is necessary when the owner voluntarily consents to the search or seizure. However, an owner may revoke his or her permission prior to the completion of the search, and the court admits the evidence found prior to the owner revoking consent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that the government may search a photocopy of a document after the owner revokes consent. The Eleventh Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether searching a mirror image copy of a computer hard drive may occur after the owner revokes consent. In United States v. Sharp, the Northern District Court of Georgia determined that although the searching methods for paper documents and computers differ, a government official may search a mirror image computer copy made during the scope of the owner’s consent.

Petitioner challenged his conviction based on Fourth Amendment grounds contending that the collection and analysis of his DNA from the chair constituted an unlawful search as it violated his expectation of privacy (Sternstein, 2014). According to Raynor v. State 2014 to ascertain whether this conduct is a search under the Fourth Amendment two conditions must be satisfied: