The blog courtartist.com has moved. Please follow this link to the new and improved courtartist.
November 27, 2013
June 03, 2013
DNA Sampling No Different Than Fingerprinting
In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy today the Supreme Court said that taking a DNA sample from a suspect is the same as fingerprinting someone upon arrest, and that the purpose is indentification of the suspect.
“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," said Justice Kennedy.
"That assertion taxes the credulity of the credulous," said Justice Scalia in a dissent delivered from the bench. "In approving that suspicionless search, the Court has cast aside a bedrock rule of our Fourth Amendment ..."
The case is Maryland v. King
February 28, 2013
DNA "Fingerprinting"?
Maryland and 27 other states have laws that permit the taking of a DNA sample, usually by cheek swab, at the time of arrest, much like fingerprinting a suspect. Maryland's high court vacated the conviction of Alonzo King whose DNA, taken during an unrelated arrest in 2009, linked him to a 2003 rape. On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Maryland v. King.
NYT's Adam Liptak writes about it here.
January 10, 2013
DUI Blood Test Argument
Can police order someone pulled over for drunk driving to take a blood test, or must they first get a warrant? During yesterday's Supreme Court arguments in Missouri v. McNeely most of the Justices seemed to think that usually a warrant should be required.
In the sketch above the ACLU's Steven Shapiro argues for the repondent, Tyler McNeely. Below are more sketches from the arguments and a link to Lyle Denniston's SCOTUSblog story.
My apologies to Mr. Shapiro; I just couldn't get a good likeness. Sometimes it's like that.
Lyle Denniston's analysis here.
November 01, 2012
Supreme Court Goes to the Dogs
Yesterday's arguments in two cases from Florida were devoted to man's best friend, or more specifically his nose. At issue, does the use of drug-sniffing dogs sometimes violate the fourth Amendment's right "against unreasonable searches and seizures", or, as the State of Florida argues, are dogs 1. never intrusive, and 2. always reliable?
In the first case, Franky, a chocolate Labrador, was brought without a warrant to the porch of Joelis Jardines where he sniffed marijuana by the front door.
In the second case a German Shepherd named Aldo smelled methamphetamine on a truck driven by Clayton Harris. No privacy issue here, but Aldo's certification had expired.
Jesse Holland has the story here.
December 05, 2011
Unwarranted Warrant?
How far can the police go in procuring a warrant based on an affidavit "so lacking in indicia of probable cause" that the resulting search not only violates the Fourth Amendment, but exposes the officer to civil action? Beats me.
I wasn't in court to cover the story, but rather to try out a new combination of sketching media. Here's what I came away with.
This was not the usual audience of spectators. I don't think they had anything to do with the cases being argued, and in fact they looked a little bored.
The case is Messerschmidt v. Millender.
Recent Comments