another thought just hit me. the scotus just ruled a few weeks ago that you had to have a warrant for a blood draw, to check for alcohol level.
why do you have to have a warrant to draw blood, but not dna? isn't that inconsistent? seems to me it is.
As you know, I disagree with the DNA ruling, but I imagine it falls under what the SC considers "invasive." I guess they feel a cheek swab is not invasive, while a blood draw is.
06-05-2013, 10:18 AM
Threaded Mode