On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police may take DNA from people arrested in connection with serious crimes. The federal government and 28 states, including California, collect DNA from people who have been arrested instead of waiting for a conviction. The majority opinion argued it’s a booking procedure, like modern day fingerprinting. But opponents say it’s a major change in police powers that tramples the privacy of suspects who haven’t been proven guilty. We discuss what the ruling will mean for pending challenges to California’s DNA collection program.
Erin Murphy, professor of law at NYU Law School
Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences, and law professor at Stanford University
Larry Rosenthal, law professor at Chapman University; former U.S. Supreme Court and clerk and former federal prosecutor