Forensic identification utilizes scientific techniques to identify specific objects or persons based on the traces they leave at a crime scene. These methods can include DNA analysis, ballistic examination, or fingerprint identification. Law enforcement extensively uses these tools to enhance their ability to investigate and solve crimes.
Constitutional Considerations in Forensic Identification
When employing these scientific techniques, constitutional considerations, particularly those related to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, come into play. Let’s delve into three pivotal Supreme Court cases to deepen our understanding.
Davis v. Mississippi (1969)
In Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of fingerprinting procedures.
The Facts: During the investigation of a rape case, the police fingerprinted many individuals without warrants or probable cause, including Davis.
Legal Issue: The key issue was whether the Fourth Amendment allowed this kind of wide-sweeping, warrantless fingerprinting.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that such fingerprinting violated the Fourth Amendment.
Rationale: The Court held that the fingerprinting process in this case amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure as it lacked a warrant, probable cause, or individualized suspicion (Davis v. Mississippi, 1969).
Maryland v. King (2013)
Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), posed questions about DNA identification.
The Facts: After an arrest for assault, King’s DNA was collected and linked to an unresolved rape case.
Legal Issue: The issue was whether collecting and analyzing a DNA sample from individuals arrested but not yet convicted was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maryland, concluding that obtaining DNA from arrestees is a legitimate police booking procedure.
Rationale: The Court considered the DNA cheek swab as a minor intrusion of privacy and a reasonable procedure to help law enforcement identify arrestees (Maryland v. King, 2013).
Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __ (2018) dealt with the collection of cell-site location data.
The Facts: The FBI utilized cell-site location information to connect Carpenter to a series of robberies.
Legal Issue: The question was whether obtaining historical cell-site records revealing location data constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that it does indeed constitute a search.
Rationale: The Court ruled that individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their physical movements, which cell-site data can expose (Carpenter v. United States, 2018).
Summary
Forensic identification methods have revolutionized the capability of law enforcement agencies to solve crimes. However, they must be applied in a manner that respects the constitutional rights of suspects. Cases like Davis v. Mississippi, Maryland v. King, and Carpenter v. United States highlight the intersection of forensic identification and constitutional considerations within procedural law.
References
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __ (2018).
- Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969).
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013).
Modification History File Created: 08/08/2018 Last Modified: 07/24/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
You are welcome to print a copy of pages from this Open Educational Resource (OER) book for your personal use. Please note that mass distribution, commercial use, or the creation of altered versions of the content for distribution are strictly prohibited. This permission is intended to support your individual learning needs while maintaining the integrity of the material.
