NEW CASTLE —
Do you trust government?
Well, you better, thanks to a new U.S. Supreme Court decision that gives law enforcement — and ultimately others in government — the ability to access sweeping new information about individuals.
It comes courtesy of a high court decision this week that upholds the constitutionality of police procedures in states where DNA samples are collected from all people arrested for serious crimes. The fact these individuals are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, and the fact the DNA may not be needed in the case at hand, is apparently beside the point.
We suspect other states — including Pennsylvania — now will be inclined to adopt this practice.
The court reached its DNA ruling in one of its now-famous 5-4 decisions. But this time, there was an unusual split, with liberal Justice Stephen Breyer joining most of the court’s conservatives in supporting the decision. But conservative Justice Antonin Scalia sided with the minority, arguing, “Make no mistake about it: Because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
The majority opinion in the case was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the court’s swing vote. Kennedy minimized any civil liberties concerns about the decision, writing, “Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Except that Kennedy’s dead wrong. And here’s why.
Fingerprints and photographs serve very limited purposes in terms of identifying individuals. They tell government nothing else about us.
But DNA tells everything about us. It is what we are. To dismiss the taking of DNA samples as nothing more than another identification technique ignores a host of disturbing ramifications.
And some of these were raised by Scalia in his written dissent. In particular, he warned that Monday’s ruling, technically limited to “serious” crimes, undoubtedly will be expanded to others should governments decide it’s desirable to do so.
“If you believe that a DNA search will identify someone arrested for bank robbery,” Scalia said, “you must believe that it will identify someone arrested for running a red light.”
At a time when the public has reasons for being suspicious of government intentions and the scope of its power — ranging from IRS probes to the seizing of news organization phone records — you would think the court might see a flaw in widespread DNA collections.
Instead, Americans are given another reason to wonder what government will do with all that information.
NEW CASTLE —
Do you trust government?
Our Opinion: No credit, big problem
Harrisburg is well known as a hotbed of political corruption. But sloth may run a close second on its list of vices. For evidence of this, we point to the latest downgrade of the commonwealth’s credit rating.
Our Opinion: Message from Putin
There’s little that’s known about the shooting down of a Malaysian jetliner near the Ukraine-Russian border. But one thing is certain: The incident and its aftermath are stark reminders that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a reliable partner.
Our Opinion: Although Corbett signs plan, many uncertainties remain
We’re not sure what to make of Pennsylvania’s budget situation at this point. Yes, the commonwealth does have a budget, after Gov. Tom Corbett signed a spending plan approved by the Legislature.
Our Opinion: Transportation funding suffers with everything else
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to provide continued funding to the federal Highway Trust Fund.
Our Opinion: New study suggests problem with some state shale gas wells
A recent study of leaks from shale gas wells raises more questions than it answers. And because of the growing presence of shale gas wells in Pennsylvania, it’s essential that both government and industry provide clarity.
Our Opinion: New round of Mideast violence threatens to expand
Anyone looking for peace in the Middle East will have to wait. Probably for quite a while.
Our Opinion: Impractical spending plan leaves state hanging
The fate of Pennsylvania’s budget for the new fiscal year remains uncertain. But one thing is clear, the state Legislature has bungled its responsibilities once again.
Our Opinion: Boehner, House complain, but refuse to act
House Speaker John Boehner says he plans to file suit against President Obama for overreaching his authority.
Dear Reader: Efficiency overlooked in Pennsylvania budget crisis
Politicians in Harrisburg are rounding up the usual suspects while crafting a balanced budget for the new fiscal year.
Our Opinion: State House passes meaningless measure
The Pennsylvania House has approved a $29.1 billion budget that includes no tax increase. The plan shifts some funds, eliminates various tax breaks and counts the privatization of state liquor stores as key ways to close a $1.7 billion hole in state finances.
- More Editorials Headlines
- Our Opinion: No credit, big problem