DNA gathering legal once arrested

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@NotreDame05

J. Scalia does address the fingerprint issue in his dissent. It seems to me J. Scalia is of the opinion the taking of fingerprints for purposes of solving a crime has never been decided by the Court but merely assumed to be permissible in its decisions. Apparently, J. Scalia is making the point the Court should address the issue of taking fingerprints for purposes of solving a crime in some future case as opposed to assuming its constitutionality. As a result, I do not expect J. Scalia to comment upon the constitutionality of taking fingerprints to solve a crime when he is asserting such a question has not been decided by the Court and the issue is not before the Court in this case.

That’s why it’s not a substantive rebuttal.

[NotreDame05]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That’s why it’s not a substantive rebuttal.

Well, the assertion a reliance on fingerprinting is a problematic analogy because the Court has never directly decided the issue of whether fingerprinting to solve a crime is permissible is a substantive rebuttal. I am not sure how exactly or why you think otherwise.

However, J. Scalia made several points in his dissent and to deride his dissent as “not a substantive rebuttal” on the basis of, ostensibly, a single point you disagree with does not make sense.