Without having a warrant, the Supreme Court rule today. Probably very rare a time when I agree with Scalia. this is nuts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/supreme-court-dna-samples_n_3378379.html
I haven't read the opinion yet, so I can't comment on the logic used to reach the decision, but it certainly looks like a huge step into eroding the 4th Amendment by the government. I also noticed the voting alignment and it looked pretty weird to me -- Scalia, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan?
So here's a question. What's the difference between taking DNA and taking fingerprints when arrested?
That's kinda my thought on it. I'm struggling with this because it seems unconstitutional but they have been doing it with fingerprints for years and no one seems to complain about that.
Suppose they took my DNA and clone without permission? Before you know it, more bandwagon Bama fans than you can shake a stick at.