吃瓜大本营

PHOENIX 鈥� In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people鈥檚 DNA, saying that a person鈥檚 limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose鈥攊n this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest鈥攄oes not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession鈥攚hether that鈥檚 blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors鈥攖o investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that 鈥渋n reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State鈥檚 position that it was free to analyze Mitcham鈥檚 blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.鈥� 鈥淕overnment analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don鈥檛 consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government鈥檚 argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淲e are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court鈥檚 decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.鈥� In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose鈥攖o extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent鈥攚hile investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government鈥檚 rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. 鈥淥ur DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,鈥� said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. 鈥淭he Court鈥檚 decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans鈥� information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.鈥�

You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes.

Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment.

AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.