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.
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.
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.
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.
