Wow! Let's handicap law enforcement even more! If collecting DNA is unconstitutional, how is fingerprinting a suspect any different? Why do we have to blow into a breathalyzer? Unless there is more to the story than this article states, it seems like you could argue that they are unreasonable searches too. Great news if you’re a bad guy.

That's right make it easier for the criminals to get away. Don't worry about the victims rights, just the criminals.

Here is the full ruling if you wish to read it.

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/68a11.pdf

Until the issue is resolved on appeal, why not at least give a suspect the option of having DNA collected to exonerate him/her. If the suspect opts out, that should not be presented in a court case, as it might bias a jury. However; if the DNA tests negative, the case might be dropped in certain situations.

don;t you have a choice to take the breath-alyzer?

Thanks for the link to the opinion Jon. I got about 12 pages into it before I started falling asleep and drooling on myself. (would that be admissable DNA evidence since it was outside of my mouth?)

Agreed Herbert!

Also, I don't think the issue is whether or not DNA testing / fingerprinting is reliable. It's whether or not its constitutional. At this point I think that it has been proven to be much more accurate than not. If it's ever proved otherwise, then this won't be an issue anymore because the prosecution won't use it as evidence.

BTW - I love the constitution and the rights it provides me. This just seems to be pushing it's limits.

how do these people sleep at night. god forbid something happen to one of the children or grandchildren. keep letting these low lifes go and get away. those that do will in the end pay.

I love the idea of collecting DNA on criminals and I agree with O'Malley's plan of collecting it on those arrested. But, on the other hand, I can see the problem that some might have about this. What if police just start arresting people to get a large DNA data base of "potential" criminals? It would never happen, you say? Yea, but our country has a history of abuse of power when not checked.

Dumb Dumb Dumb, leave it to the Dumbocrats to oppose this, DNA should be taken and cataloged when you are born and when you apply for Drivers Licence, welfare etc., this will help stop crime.

And if you are a Law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about.

Fingerprints, DNA, and photos should be identifiers in the public safety scene. If I want law enforcement to protect me, I have to allow them to use the necessary tools. That doesn't mean I shouldn't watch for abuse and allow proper oversight. Unfortunately I side with law enforcement in this case.

Maryland might as well correct this now and change the law to read that anyone convicted must give up a DNA sample. Maybe they already do that.

Why stop collection on the basis of a court ruling (which is only the oppinion of one judge or panel of judges) when an appeal is inevitable? To my way of thinking, continue collection with a rider explaining the process is under judicial revue. When, and if there is a final determination by a High Court, the DNA sample could be either saved or destroyed by reason of that Courts' ruling.
Simply discontinuing a good Law Enforcement tool at this early stage seems counterintuitive. When ya put on that hat with the gold braid, ya don't stop thinking!!!

No, John, I'm not questioning DNA science. I really have no opinion about it one way or the other. What I was questioning was your statement that law- abiding citizens "have nothing to worry about" when LE starts chipping away at Constitutionally protected freedoms. IMO, that is startlingly naive.

If your innocent voluntarily give your dna for your defense except your probably poor and can't get a pub defender good enough. The ruling is correct however some poor will be screwed !!

Buck- Respectfully, I dont understand your argument. Why take tools away from the police just because science may, possibly, someday, find out that its not 100% perfect. Nothing is perfect, but it has proven to be accurate. Should we stop giving medicine that helps the majority of people who need it because someday it may prove to have an adverse effect on 1% of the population? Yes their lives could be ruined, but the greater good is served. DNA is a better more, accurate tool than fingerprinting. Someday they will have a better more accurate tool than DNA. That doesn't mean that DNA testing wasn't worthwhile. This is a seperate argmunent though. Now we are arguing whether or not DNA testing should be used because of its accuracy instead of its constitutionality.

Yes the constitution protects our freedom, but it does have limits. We are all exercising our first amendment right to free speech buy commenting on this case. That doesnt mean that I can threaten to kill everyone on this site that disagrees with me. There is a limit to the protections the constitution gives me. The second amendment allows me to own a gun. It doesn't mean I should be allowed to own a rocket launcher or a tank as well.

Paul - Freedom can come at a cost. It doesn't have to be all or nothing though.

You are still able to voluntarily have your DNA taken and tested.

Does that mean no one has to pay child support if the dads DNA matches the baby?

But I think the main reason behind the DNA bank is to use it as evidence in past or future investigations, as well as the crime the person was arrested for presenetly. That is the problem with the DNA bank. It is not too hard to believe that police might want to start arresting a wide swath of people they consider "potential" criminals in the hopes of clearing the books on past investigations and making any future investigations easier. I happen to like that train of thought but then again I am probably not the type of person they would be hauling into jail on what could be flimsy charges just to get at my DNA.

According to the scientific community DNA is supposed to be 99% accurate. I'm not do sure. Didn't this all start with a legal project helping people in jail who were wrongly accused. Kirk Bloodsworth was from here served about 10 years and DNA test got him out of jail and he received about $300,000.00. Fingerprints have come under scrutiny as well. I guess nothing is perfect.

This case wasn't about the scientific accuracy of DNA or fingerprints. It's about whether LE has the right to take DNA from those suspected, but not tried/convicted, of a crime. MD's high court has said they do not and I agree with them. LE has plenty of "tools" available to them; they will have to manage without this one. The Wicomico County Sheriff is the Eastern Shore's own Joe Arpaio.He's wrong on this.

I will side with you,Rebecca, until their convicted DNA should not be taken. I believe the court made the right decision.

The police do not just go around taking DNA from a person. It is only used to convict or remove a person from suspicion.How much more simplier can I make it ? . . We have a right to be properly represented so the criminals can be procecuted and the innocent can go on their daily lives.I guess taking finger prints and a line up is another infringement ?Taking away a valuable tool from the police makes no sense at all. If a member of your family is taken out of your house and the police connect that person to the crime ( through DNA ) is it a violation of their civil rights ? The only persons who should want to do away with the DNA are the ones concerned about getting convicted with a crime in the future.Defending the elimination of DNA to solve crimes borders on stupidity.,,Correction...it goes beyond that !

I agree with you about the posts Rebecca. We can all be passionate in our arguments without being disrespectful of other peoples points of view.

We part ways there though. How is this different than fingerprinting? There is a huge national database for that. And to be fair, not everyone who is arrested has a DNA sample taken. Samples were only take from individuals who were "arrested for a crime of violence, an attempted crime of violence, a burglary, or an attempted burglary". The practice was much more limited than fingerprinting. Police take fingerprints any time you're arrested, regardless of the charges.

I think taking prints is more then ID. Now they can scan your prints in a huge database through the FBI in seconds. I don't believe they should take your prints unless you have been arrested for a felony. But they will print you for a simple misdemeanor. May not be the same as taking your DNA, but can be just as invasive. I can't help grouping them together.

Ahh the DNA question...to be or not to be???? Well, for folks in this conversation who feel it to be a detriment to require DNA samples be taken and who by some chance are arrested and through some God forsaken errors are found guilty, although they are NOT GUILTY....might they consider asking for a DNA test??? I know I would...but then, that is silly old me leaning toward science. And, just for my education, where does the stat number "thousands" come from when talking innocent people found guilty. And if correct, how many of those so-called thousands of innocent folks would have been found guilty if DNA was taken and their guilt proven otherwise? Sometimes I think our court folks like controversy just to keep the home fires burning. If I am arrested and DNA can prove my innocence, you bet your bottom dollar I was the test taken!!! The rest of the crew can scream all the way to jail.

I'm not a constitutional scholar either. The judge who ruled on the case is obviously much better versed than I am. I just worry about the ramifications of the ruling.

The state argued in the appeal that the DNA Collection Act was for the purpose of identification. From the link above - ("The State countered that there is an overriding governmental interest in identifying arrestees accurately, that DNA profiles developed from arrestees under the Maryland DNA Collection Act are used only for identification purposes...") If the police were able to get a hit off of a fingerprint, that would be ok. I don't see the difference between the two. If you can argue that fingerprinting is unconstitutional, you could say that taking photos of arrestees is no different. This seems to be moving us in the wrong direction.

The judge clearly agrees with you on this one though. Getting a court order to collect DNA isn't the end of the world. It is one more thing to bog down the courts though. I wonder if this will ever get to the US Supreme Court. This ruling could be far reaching.

I will ask for a DNA test through my lawyer if I was ever arrested and charged for a crime I did not commit. However, that would be the only way I would give up my DNA. I bet this will go before the Supreme Court.

It's got a long way to go before the Supremes ever hear about it. As I know the ruling, it was issued by The Maryland High Court. There's still the District Court of Appeals for Maryland (Federal Court0, and other Appeals Processes, and somewhere down the road. a Judicial Review to determine whether it should go before the Supremes.The issue could die right here in Maryland, but I for one, don't think so. DNA is too important of a Law Enforcement issue to just go away any time soon, especially in this 'Blue' State.

Dennis, thanks! On tonight's local news the ACLU is very happy with this ruling. I'm a product of the 60's and we suffer from the big brother is everywhere syndrome. I'm sure they know everything about us anyway. Not unlike the credit bureaus and google.

Zoobie, the Supremes!

Let's see: we can take fingerprints, pictures, strip search all violent (and many non-violent offenders), but we can't take a 5 second swab of somehone's cheek for someone arrested for a CRIME OF VIOLENCE, even if it means we save the lives of other people? We need the Governor and Attorney General to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court!

I really enjoyed reading all the comments about this case and of course there's more to it than what they allow everyone to know. The fingerprints and palm prints from the scene DIDN'T match his. He initially was arrested on an assault charge and when he was booked and processed they NEVER took his DNA bc it wasn't a violent charge nor was he a felon. They came a year later and took a total of 6 swabs at different times. That is a violation of his fourth amendment right just to start off. They said they got a positive hit twice, but what about the other 4 that weren't a match? They covered that up and no1 knew about that. What they did to him was wrong and it violated his rights in more ways than one. I dropped him off at the scene after he received a phone call from this woman's grandson. I know he didn't didn't do this and now they've made everyone categorize him as this person that he isn't. They NEVER give the true story, only what they want you to know. He never should've spent the last 3 years behind bars, period. They should release him and due time for what they did to him around here. They ruined his life and violated him in many ways.

Thank you, A.K., for giving us another way to look at this. It's important for everyone to realize that constitutional protections are in place precisely to protect against the kind of thing that happened here, and that can happen to the innocent as easily as to the guilty.

I'm sorry if the police didn't follow proper procedure in this case. If that's true and his rights were violated then his case should have been thrown out. But hat doesn't mean that the rules that should have been followed are flawed.

And isn't an assault charge a crime of violence by definition?

Absolutely! No1 knows everything that's gone on with this case. He was arrested for an assault charge which wasn't a violent crime nd again he wasn't a felon so that alone didn't give them a right to take his dna. Them coming a year later was wrong. They got his fingerprints and when they were ran in the database they didn't match and if they got a so called hit from this mysterious sample that was never takenwhy would you come 6 more times? They just wanted to make an example out of him and they definitely succeeded. He knew this woman and was even around her on numerous occasions after this happened to her so if it was him who did it why would you even allow him around and why not say something then? Im going to tell you why, bc he didn't do it and i know for a fact he didn't, but there was nothing I could do at the time. Bottom line is his fourth amendment rights were violated and theof the decision of the appellate courts was the right one. A lot

You're clearly closer to the case than we are. All I can go by is what the court documents say. (I'm not saying that the documents are right and you are wrong. It's just that the two stories contradict each other a little bit). Regardless of whether or not his case was botched, I think the general concept of collecting a DNA sample is no different from fingerprinting and photographing arrestees and should be allowed.

A.K., I understand an infringement might have been made but to cancel out a valuable tool like DNA taking is a mistake that will cause problems. It has to be thrown out or at least amended to make more sense.More families have had closure through DNA and more criminals are exactly where they belong.

Buck, The decision to allow him "some" consideration "might" be understandable.To stop the use of DNA is not. Best tool they have to remove the low lifes off the street.
The decision to halt the use of it cripples the law enforcement agencies and lets the criminals get away with murder. Just hope the supporters don't have to deal with the repercussions.We all will until it is overturned.Very bad decision.Never heard of any abuse using DNA only that it caught the right people.Hardly abuse asking someone to take a DNA test if it protects the public.Unfortunately,many of these supporters have no idea what goes on in the law enforcement field.I am for only protecting the law abidding citizens not the ones who prey on us.

In the most basic of explanations. If the police want a DNA sample from the suspect of a crime and the suspect refuses they can get a court order for the DNA. It's very simple and normal. To take DNA and place it in a database as evidence for future or past crimes, without probable cause, is a unreasonable search and seizure.

It' apparent that the two sides in this argument are what they are and there's never going to be a meeting of the minds.' guess that's why we have the best court system in the world and that's where this decision will be settled.....for better or worse. I believe that at this time, the subject has been beaten to death, and i'm bowing out.
It's been great hearing how the general public feels, and I sincerely hope that Justice will be served. One High Court ruling never settles anything, so, we'll just have to see how it all plays out in the days to come. My only hope is that the Guilty will not go free, and that the Innocent will remain free.

Buck, On that count you are right. Hard core criminals welcome an opportunity to bend the constitution. We only want to use it as it was intended...to protect the innocent. I'm sure there will be changes by the supreme court so that DNA can bring those to justice who have evaded it so long.

According to the DNA act in order for it to be taken you have to be charged with a violent crime (murder burglary rape etc.) or you have to already be a felon. This does not apply for a misdemeanor (assault etc). They didn't have the right to even take his dna. A CO who works at the jail who is not trained or certified to do so stated she took it, but that never happened. They came with warrant 1st time, but the other 5 times they came to get it they didn't have warrant. That's when all this bs came about . The judge whom heard this case and sentenced him to life stated to him a few years prior "if I see you in my court room again, im going to put you away for good." That's what she did. She didn't want to hear that his rights were violated nor did She want to hear about the other ones that didn't match. Shthat's for the prosecution to prove. Im not saying they shouldn't collect it from felons, but I am sying they need to abide by the rules that they set forth in regards to the dna act. They're going buck wild with it bc they've been able to get away with it and it's about time smeone puts their foot down and protect the rights of the citizens whether they're free or locked up.