COLUMN: Technology vs. the Constitution

Technology currently exists which can pinpoint your location at any time, monitor your communications, see through the walls of your house, read your license plate from space and much, much more.

To date, the courts have been fairly liberal in their interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to applying this technology towards law enforcement and national security objectives.

So liberal in fact, that we may have already crossed the Rubicon.

Currently, 21 states and the federal government take DNA samples from people arrested for a felony crime.

Not convicted - just arrested.

Recently proposed legislation by State Rep. Rob Teilhet would allow Georgia to do the same.

Last I checked, people are still presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, that presumption of innocence which derives from our Constitution does not apply under this legislation. The DNA sample will be forcibly taken before guilt or innocence is determined.

Proponents argue that collection at arrest will enable authorities to compare the information to samples from unsolved crimes.

It almost sounds like a good idea until you consider the implications.

At the time of arrest, a person who should be presumed innocent and afforded all the legal privileges our system of jurisprudence provides will have evidence collected from their body which may ultimately convict them of a crime, perhaps even one they have not yet committed.

To date, the courts have not found that this violates Fifth Amendment protections against self incrimination or Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

The logic seems to be that if there is probable cause to arrest a person, then that is sufficient enough reason to suspect they might have committed other crimes. Maybe that is perfectly logical, but is it constitutional?

Conceivably, the DNA could even be used to implicate family members. In California, authorities are allowed to do “familial searches.” The DNA sample may not directly match a sample on file, but it may identify related individuals who could help locate a wanted person.

Admittedly, the temptation to fully utilize this technology is great.

However, once you open the door to subjecting presumably innocent people to this kind of search and seizure, you are creating a precedent for subjecting others to the same.

There may come a time when DNA samples are routinely collected from everyone. Maybe they will be taken at birth under the guise of medical analysis or maybe they will be collected to prevent identity theft or fraud.

And maybe no one will mind if these samples go into a master database used to identify criminal perpetrators. Maybe crime will eventually become non-existent and the constitutional right to due process irrelevant.

Until that time comes, I would rather err on the side of preserving an individual’s legal rights than squelch them in the name of “the greater good.”

When it comes to this type of technology, just because we can do something does not mean that we should do it.

Kristi Reed is a reporter for the Barrow Journal. She can be reached at kreed@barrowjournal.com.