Top of the Ninth
The Ninth Circuit gets one right:
A federal appeals court on Thursday declared unconstitutional a 2000 law that requires federal prisoners or those on supervised release to give blood samples for the FBI’s DNA databank.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the first federal appeals court to address the federal DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, said requiring convicts to give blood for a criminal database is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches.
Ruling 2-1, the San Francisco-based court said it was an unlawful invasion of privacy because the samples were taken without legal suspicion that the convicts were involved in other crimes.
This does, however, bring up an issue I’ve been pondering lately:
When someone is convicted of certain crimes, we revoke their right to vote and keep and bear arms. People seem to be OK with that. Can we then revoke privacy rights, speech rights, peacable assembly rights, etc.?
Thoughts? Opinions? I’m stumped.
October 3rd, 2003 at 11:16 am
Tough call. In a general case, I would say that a right ought only be revoked following a confirmed egregious abuse of that right (for example, taking away gun rights if you use guns in the comission of a felony, or taking away the right to vote if you’re guilty of treason).
And apparently we can revoke privacy rights, as sexual offender publication laws (Megan’s Laws) are upheld as constitutional.
Whether I agree with that is another story. Selectively upholding rights seems to set a dangerous precedent. Where do you draw the line?
October 3rd, 2003 at 11:46 am
I mist the part of the Constitution where it says the government has the enumerated power of ignoring it’s enumerated powers on occasion. Of course it could be in there, I am just saying that I missed it if it is in there.
October 3rd, 2003 at 12:43 pm
My personal view is that the Constitution is a contract, and if you break that contract, ie breaking the law, you are no longer protected by it.
It’s not a popular view, since it can be stretched to the ridiculous, ie losing the right to vote because of a jaywalking ticket, but I think the principle is sound.
October 3rd, 2003 at 12:45 pm
Megan’s Law isn’t the same thing. The fact that someone has been convincted of a crime is public record.
Megan’s Law is an interesting exercise. What if every ex-convict had to go around telling his neighbors “I’m a convicted sex offender/burglar/murderer/arsonist/con man.” It might only serve to induce paranoia, but it would definitely wake some people up to the realities of the world we live in.
October 3rd, 2003 at 12:53 pm
I mist [sic] the part of the Constitution where it says the government has the enumerated power of ignoring it’s [sic] enumerated powers on occasion.
For once, we agree on something. Which is why I said it’s a dangerous precedent.
My ex-brother-in-law cannot own a gun, for example, because in his early 20’s, he copped a plea on felony marijuana possession. No attempt to sell, no armed anything, strictly the amount of marijuana he possessed constituted a felony.
October 3rd, 2003 at 4:09 pm
My personal view is that the Constitution is a contract, and if you break that contract, ie breaking the law, you are no longer protected by it.
When you break the law, your not breaking the Constitution..they are separate, only the gov’t can break the Constitution. I think that the only “crime” in there is treason if I’m not mistaken, and let’s not forget about 8th Amendment which protects criminals from cruel and unusual punishment.
My view is that we ultimately have to forgive people who’ve commited a crime and restore all of their rights. Have a period where some of those rights are taken away and then gradually give them back.
October 6th, 2003 at 3:17 pm
Les,
Yes, it is a contract and when it is broken the criminal goes free. Well, technically he is not a criminal for whatever gov’t clod violated the Constitution.
See Manish’s comment for more background and he is correct, only one party to said contract is capable of breaking it.
October 3rd, 2003 at 3:09 pm
Suspicionless Forced DNA Submission Ruled Unconsitional
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the right of privacy extends to blood samples:A federal appeals court on Thursday declared unconstitutional a 2000 law that requires federal prisoners or those on supervised release to give…