The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the police. Searches must be done with a warrant or under one of the described exceptions. In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court ruled that the police can take DNA during the booking process from people who have been arrested and not yet convicted. This is similar to an arrestee having his or her fingerprints taken during booking. Do a quick search of the Bill of Rights to investigate the exact wording to inform your response.
Do you think this violates a person's right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures?
What are the implications of this case upon all the branches of the criminal justice system?
Sample Solution
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” In Maryland v. King (2013),
a 5-4 majority decision by the Supreme Court determined that police officers may take DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious offenses without violating their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
The implications of this ruling are far reaching for both citizens and those in law enforcement. From a citizen’s perspective, this ruling warrants caution when it comes to interactions with law enforcement as any arrest could lead to having one’s genetic material taken and stored in a database which can then be used to link an individual to other crimes they may have committed or been accused of committing in the past. This can easily result in miscarriages of justice if an individual is wrongfully identified through such a process or if evidence is mishandled at any point during testing or analysis.
From a criminal justice system standpoint, there are also potential ramifications due to this ruling as well as benefits. On one hand, DNA evidence collected during arrests has already proven invaluable in exonerating some individuals who were found guilty by juries before further testing was conducted – thus preventing injustices from occurring due to false convictions based on faulty evidence or witness testimony alone. However, there have also been concerns raised about civil liberties abuses such as collecting too much information about suspects which can then potentially lead to racial profiling and discrimination based on genetic makeup rather than actual behavior which would violate their civil rights granted by the Constitution itself. Additionally there are practical cost considerations associated with these types of tests that must factor into the overall budgeting decisions made within each branch of law enforcement – especially when considering long term storage costs associated with maintaining such databases over time.
Overall while Maryland v King does offer potential advantages including improved accuracy within criminal investigations utilizing state-of-the art technology – particular attention should still be given towards ensuring individual privacy rights remain intact regardless of whether someone has been arrested for a crime or not as outlined by our nation’s founding fathers many centuries ago through passage of The Bill Of Rights itself .