91³Ō¹Ļ

ND Expert: SCOTUS DNA ruling 'goes to the heart of the Fourth Amendment'

Author: Shannon Roddel

Richard W

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced, in Maryland v. King, that the Fourth Amendment allows law-enforcement officers to take DNA samples from arrestees as part of the booking process.

According to University of 91³Ō¹Ļ Professor of Law Richard W. Garnett, who teaches criminal and constitutional law, ā€œthe decision and the voting lineup of the justices serve as a reminder that constitutional questions are often more complicated and more interesting than the overused ā€˜liberals v. conservatives’ narrative suggests.ā€

ā€œWe’re used to reading in the papers about Justice Scalia’s tough dissents and hearing his views and approach characterized as ā€˜conservative,ā€™ā€ says Garnett, a past clerk to former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. ā€œIn fact, and in a number of cases having to do with the rights of accused criminals and the constitutional limits on police tactics, Scalia’s insistence that the Constitution be interpreted and enforced in a way that is consistent with its original meaning, results in votes and opinions that defy such simplistic characterizations. For Scalia, the rule against using suspicion-less searches as investigative tools is not a policy preference of his or simply the result of changes in technology and society. It is, as he insisted in his dissent, ā€˜at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.ā€™ā€

Garnett says Scalia has regularly defended the rights of the accused against innovative, high-tech police tactics by invoking our Founding Fathers’ clear rejection of unreasonable searches and seizures and the ā€œoriginal meaningā€ of constitutional safeguards.

ā€œWhile some of Scalia’s critics complain that his emphasis on the Constitution’s ā€˜original meaning’ is too conservative and does not adequately take into account the real-world fact of change, today’s decision should serve as a reminder that technological and other changes can undermine, diminish, or water down fundamental rights just as easily as they can expand them, and it is not necessarily ā€˜conservative’ to defend these rights as they were originally understood,ā€ Garnett says.

Contact: Richard W. Garnett, 574-631-6981 or rgarnett@nd.edu