supreme court

Some Local Police Compiling Their Own DNA Databases

June 14, 2013 | by Aretsky Law Group

Some DNA Samples Don’t Meet Federal Regulations

Some local law enforcement agencies nationwide are compiling their own databases of DNA samples collected from suspected criminals and innocent people, according to an article in The New York Times.

The article in the New York Times yesterday detailed how several law enforcement agencies around the country have been compiling databases of DNA samples of everyone from detainees who are later cleared of charges to people who have fallen prey to criminals. These agencies say they don’t want to wait for federal databases. In some instances, the DNA samples they’re collecting don’t meet federal regulations to be included in the federal database.

Police Can Collect DNA Samples

June 5, 2013 | by Aretsky Law Group

Ruling Upholds DNA Law in New Jersey and Other States

In a ruling earlier this week, the Supreme Court authorized police to collect DNA samples from people arrested for serious crimes.

The ruling effectively upholds laws in states such as New Jersey, which allow law enforcement to collect DNA samples from arrestees, not just those who have been convicted, of “serious” new crimes. The ruling did not define the “serious” crimes.

Can an officer force you to take a blood test during a DUI stop?

April 19, 2013 | by Aretsky Law Group

Supreme Court bars officers from forcing blood tests on most DUI suspects

Police officers can no longer force people suspected of driving while drunk to take a blood alcohol test without a warrant. Officers must request a search warrant with corroborating evidence if the motorist declines a blood test during a DUI stop.

In a ruling announced earlier this week, the Supreme Court said that police officers can order a blood test from people they believe have been driving under the influence of alcohol only if they have a search warrant, except in an emergency or other unusual circumstances. The Court found that most DUI stops did not, in and of themselves, constitute an emergency. The decision basically upholds a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches, which the court said includes forced blood tests.