"High court to hear rights challenge to DNA collection" by Jesse J. Holland | Associated Press, February 26, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday will try to balance the rights of Americans who have not been convicted of a major crime to keep their DNA out of the government’s hands against the rights of crime victims to see justice done.
If the court rules for Alonzo King of Maryland, more than 1 million DNA profiles that have been stored in a federal database for matching with future crime scene evidence may have to be purged, advocates say. Others will never be collected, leading some repeat offenders to go free.
Under consideration is a 2003 case in Salisbury, Md. A man wearing a hat and scarf and showing a gun had raped and robbed a 53-year-old woman in her home and then vanished into the night.
Almost six years later, King was arrested in a nearby county and charged with an unrelated assault. Taking advantage of a Maryland law that allowed DNA tests after felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King’s DNA, which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison.
But a Maryland court said they had to let him go.
King was not convicted of the crime for which he was arrested and swabbed. Instead, he pled guilty to the lesser charge of misdemeanor assault, a crime for which Maryland cannot take DNA samples.
The lower courts said it violated King’s rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone.
The Supreme Court is expected to make a final decision before summer.
Victims rights advocates defend the DNA testing laws.
‘‘The early collection of DNA prevents crime,’’ said William C. Sammons of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. ‘‘Had the recidivists been identified early in their career through arrestee collection, they would not have been able to commit the bulk of their crimes.’’
But privacy activists see letting police use DNA information without a warrant or a conviction as another loss for American privacy, with Americans’ genetic information held by the government eventually being used for other purposes.
As much as I oppose violence and crime, that last bit is a real deal-killer for me. I'd rather they let me keep the gun instead.
‘‘Regardless of what the government does with the DNA sample and the limits it places on the sample’s use, all the highly personal data in it is in the government’s possession and outside the individual’s control,’’ said Jennifer Lynch, lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the court’s blessing. But 28 states and the federal government now also take samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven.
It sure looks like a violation of privacy and the Bill of Rights.
Left on the cutting room floor:
Victims' rights groups argue that the earlier the DNA test, the earlier repeat criminals are put in jail. And since arrestees already have to tell police their names and give them their fingerprints and any identifying documents they're carrying, they have no right to hide genetic information that could help solve cold cases, they say.
--more--"
"Justices struggle with questions on DNA collection system" by Jesse J. Holland | Associated Press, February 27, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struggled on Tuesday with what one of the justices called its most important criminal procedure case in decades, whether to let police take DNA without a warrant from those arrested in hopes of using it to solve old cases.
Justices seemed conflicted over whether police have a right to take genetic information from people who have only been arrested without getting a judge’s approval first, or if the government’s interest in solving cold cases trumped the immediate privacy rights of those under police suspicion of other crimes.
One justice seemed to make clear what he thought. ‘‘I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades,’’ said Justice Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor.
‘‘This is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes, that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy,’’ Alito said later.
Or those innocents in jail absolved, a far higher number here in AmeriKa than one might think.
‘‘Why isn’t this the fingerprinting of the 21st century? What is the difference? If it was permissible, and it’s been assumed to be so for decades, that it is permissible to fingerprint anybody who’s booked, why is it not permissible to take a DNA sample from anybody who is arrested?’’
But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned how far the government can go if they decide that the police have an interest in people’s DNA to help solve cases, with Roberts noting that it would not take much for police to add DNA swabs to traffic stops. ‘‘Police officers who give Breathalyzer tests, they can also take a Q-tip or whatever and get a DNA sample, right?’’ Roberts said.
‘‘It could be any arrestee, no matter how minor the offense,’’ Kagan said. ‘‘It could be just any old person in the street. Why don’t we do this for everybody who comes in for a driver’s license because it’s very effective?’’
Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the court’s blessing.
But now 28 states and the federal government also take samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven.
According to court documents, the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System or CODIS — a coordinated system of federal, state, and local databases of DNA profiles — contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of those arrested.
Related: Boston's Cold Case CODIS
In the case before the court, a 53-year-old woman was raped and robbed but no one was arrested. Almost six years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with felony second-degree assault.
Taking advantage of a Maryland law that allowed warrantless DNA tests following some felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King’s DNA, which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison.
King eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault from his arrest, a crime for which Maryland cannot take warrantless DNA samples. The state courts said it violated King’s rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone.
The state Court of Appeals said King had ‘‘a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches.’’
The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision. The justices will make a decision later this year.
Almost all the justices participated in the spirited back-and-forth with lawyers Tuesday — Justice Clarence Thomas did not say anything, as is his custom.
A decision may not fall along the court’s ideological lines — for example, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia seemed at times to concern himself about the program’s reach, and the usually liberal-voting Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to think that DNA cheek swabs were no more intrusive than fingerprinting, a position expected more from the court’s conservative wing.
The DNA samples said what?
--more--"
They did a paternity test.
Other DNA with which the court is concerning itself:
"Supreme Court seems to favor Monsanto in seed case" by Mark Sherman | Associated Press, February 20, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to side with Monsanto Co. in its claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company’s patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer.
What a shock.
None of the justices in arguments at the high court seemed ready to endorse farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman’s argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company’s Roundup herbicide.
Chief Justice John Roberts wondered ‘‘why in the world would anybody’’ invest time and money on seeds if it was so easy to evade patent protection.
To protect its investment in the seeds’ development, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.
So not only are GMO seeds s***, with lower yields and potential health problems, but now we find out they are actually a way of f***ing the farmer.
The case is being closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies, and other self-replicating technologies.
The issue for the court is how far the patents held by the world’s largest seed company extend. More than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto’s ‘‘Roundup Ready’’ seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.
The 75-year-old Bowman bought the expensive seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.
He went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling, and other uses, but not as seed.
Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years. In 2007, Monsanto sued and won an $84,456 judgment.
Across the court’s conservative-liberal divide, justices expressed little sympathy for Bowman’s actions.
They all agreed on this? It truly is a corporate court.
Justice Stephen Breyer said Bowman could make many uses of the soybeans he bought from the grain elevator. ‘‘Feed it to the animals. Feed it your family or make tofu turkey,’’ Breyer said.
But patent law makes it illegal for Bowman to plant them. ‘‘What it prohibits here is making a copy of the patented invention and that is what he did,’’ Breyer said.
Mark Walters, Bowman’s Seattle-based lawyer, tried to focus the court on the claim that Monsanto has used patent law to bully farmers.
‘‘What they are asking for is for the farmer to assume all the risk of farming, but yet they can sit back and control how that product is used,’’ Walters said.
Monsanto lawyer Seth Waxman said the company put 13 years and hundreds of millions of dollars into developing herbicide-resistant seeds.
‘‘Without the ability to limit the reproduction of soybeans containing this patented trait, Monsanto could not have commercialized its invention and never would have produced what is now the most popular patented technology’’ in farming, Waxman said.
The Obama administration also is backing the company.
(Blog editor's chin drops to chest)
Consumer groups and organic food producers have fought Monsanto over genetically engineered farm and food issues in several settings.
They lost a campaign in California last year to require labels on most genetically engineered processed foods and produce.
Rig jobs do that to me.
--more--"
While in the business realm:
"High court questions US claim on fraud suit’s time limit" by Jesse J. Holland | Associated Press, January 09, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed skeptical about the government’s claim that it should be allowed more time to sue some fund executives for securities fraud....
Why did they wait so long?
Justice Elena Kagan suggested the only reason the government is trying to stretch back and go after Gabelli and Albert is because the New York attorney general got there first.
‘‘The government had decided not to go after market timers,’’ she said. ‘‘And it changed its decision when a state attorney general decided to do it, and it embarrassed them that they had made that enforcement priority decision.”
Yeah, otherwise they weren't going to do a damn thing, and as we saw with the fraudulent foreclosure settlement, the federal government only gets involved to protect bankers from state lawsuits.
Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey B. Wall said he couldn’t believe lawmakers intended to create an obvious loophole.
‘‘I cannot imagine that the Congress, which allowed agencies to seek civil penalties . . . would have thought that the only people who could get away without paying them are the ones who commit fraud or concealment and that remains hidden for five years,’’ Wall said.
Actually, I can believe it considering their major donors.
--more--"
Time for a check-up and that DNA sample:
"Court orders look at health care challenge" by Mark Sherman | Associated Press, November 27, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Obama’s health care overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that the health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms.
The court’s action at this point means only that the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit must now pass judgment on issues it previously declined to rule on....
Want even more money to buy off politicians.
"Chief Justice John Roberts stresses courts’ frugality" by Robert Barnes | The Washington Post, January 02, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court finished its most closely examined term in years last June when it narrowly upheld the Affordable Care Act. On the horizon are decisions on affirmative action and same-sex marriage.
But Chief Justice John Roberts mentioned none of that in his annual year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary, issued Monday. He stressed frugality rather than controversy, saying the federal courts already are doing their part in holding the line on spending.
‘‘No one seriously doubts that the country’s fiscal ledger has gone awry,’’ Roberts wrote in a report issued as President Obama and congressional leaders continued to work toward a deal on taxes and spending.
‘‘The public properly looks to its elected officials to craft a solution. We in the judiciary stand outside the political arena, but we can continue to do our part to address the financial challenges within our sphere.’’
But Roberts said the Supreme Court, all other federal courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts together consume a ‘‘minuscule’’ portion of the federal budget: $6.97 billion of a $3.7 trillion allocation.
‘‘Yes, for each citizen’s tax dollar, only two-tenths of one penny go toward funding the entire third branch of government!’’ Roberts wrote. ‘‘Those fractions of a penny are what Americans pay for a judiciary that is second to none.’’
Some Senate leaders have expressed concern that the judiciary has not developed contingency plans for possible cuts.
But Roberts noted that, unlike executive departments, the courts ‘‘do not have discretionary programs they can eliminate or projects they can postpone. The courts must resolve all criminal and civil cases that fall within their jurisdiction, often under tight time constraints.’’
He repeated his call for the political branches to solve a stalemate that will mean more vacancies on the federal bench at the end of Obama’s first term than there were when he took office in 2009.
Roberts did not choose sides in a debate about whether the fault lies with the president’s pace of nominations or Senate Republicans’ stalling even noncontroversial nominations.
--more--"
Then he tells us the judiciary needs more judges.
Justice Clarence Thomas breaks years of silence
Only to get his cheek swabbed.
And looking ahead:
Only to get his cheek swabbed.
And looking ahead:
"
Obama win creates new chance to mold court"
Bloomberg News,
November 12, 2012
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, the first president to appoint two female justices, may have a chance to name a third during his second term in office and deepen his imprint on the Supreme Court.
With four justices 74 or older, actuarial tables alone suggest Obama will have another vacancy or two to fill before he leaves the White House....
A new justice would join a court now split almost evenly on questions of abortion, race, religion, gun rights and campaign finance....
Another Obama appointment would solidify that wing of the court, even if the balance doesn’t tip. Because a new justice would potentially serve for decades, Obama’s appointees would be in position to shape US law long after he has left the White House.
--more--"
