Popular Science: Your DNA Can Now Be Used Against You in Court Without Your Consent [especially if you abandoned it]

Popular Science: Your DNA Can Now Be Used Against You in Court Without Your Consent By Lydia Ramsey

A Recent Refusal by the Supreme Court Means That Involuntary DNA Collection Isn’t Unconstitutional

Comment: No it doesn’t. This was DNA from sweat left on a chair after the defendant was questioned and stood up. It’s no different than that from the rim of a soda can or styrofoam coffee cup or a cigarette butt. It was abandoned. I hate it when nonlawyers write about the law.

From the article:

In 2009, a Maryland county court convicted Glenn Raynor of rape, the verdict hinging on a key piece of evidence: Raynor’s DNA samples. However, Raynor didn’t give his DNA willingly. After he consistently refused to provide any samples to the police, officers snagged a few samples of Raynor’s sweat from a chair he had been sitting in during an interrogation session. The DNA matched DNA found at the crime scene, and the prosecution built their case around that fact, leading to a 100-year prison sentence.

Raynor appealed the decision, saying the DNA evidence shouldn’t have been used because it was collected without his consent. The appeal made it all the way up to the Supreme Court, which on Monday, the court announced that it would not hear the case. The Supreme Court did not comment on the denial—and to be fair, they get requests to hear a whole lot of cases every year and have to deny a majority of them—their refusal to hear the case means they stand with the lower court’s majority opinion: ….

Note: No it doesn’t

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.