The Supreme Court is considering whether or not it is unconstitutional for police to gather DNA from from individuals who are arrested—even if the DNA evidence results in crime-solving:
“Once the government has someone’s DNA, Shanmugam argues in his briefs, Big Brother has possession of that person’s genetic blueprint. Allowing the government to collect and keep DNA raises privacy concerns, he writes, because it contains ‘information that can be used to make predictions about a host of physical and behavioral characteristics, ranging from the subject’s age, ethnicity, and intelligence to the subject’s propensity for violence and addiction.’
“Shanmugam acknowledges that laws prohibit unauthorized disclosures of DNA, but he points out that Maryland’s law allows sharing DNA for ‘research’ purposes. And he notes that state attorney general Gansler ’embraced’ the notion that the government would eventually have everyone’s DNA, because Gansler testified before the legislature that someday ‘everybody’s DNA’ would be in some sort of a database, ‘like with our Social Security numbers.’
“Shanmugam wrote in his brief: ‘Some Fourth Amendment incursions may come dressed in sheep’s clothing. This wolf comes as a wolf.’”
Get the Longreads Weekly Email