On the recordDecember 18, 2012
Thank you, Ranking Member Scott. This is an unusual circumstance in which the Fourth Amendment, which protects individual privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, has hardly been mentioned. Another thing that is curious about this measure is that there hasn't been a hearing on the bill, not a single hearing. Now, I suppose we should just skip over that. Oh, by the way, the Supreme Court of the United States has a case which is testing the issue of the appropriateness of collecting the DNA of arrestees, which will soon reasonably be decided. As one who supports the goals of this legislation--its objectives to apprehend offenders and provide relief to victims--it seems like, in our haste, we've tossed procedure into the waste basket. I just can't understand why we can't examine the constitutionality of the practice of DNA in an appropriate manner, and that's what Maryland v. King would do. I know it's being used in other places, but I have never participated in legislation that attempts to become law while the matter is still in the Supreme Court, about to be decided. Maybe if I looked hard enough, we could find some cases in which that may have happened. When you combine all of these unusual circumstances, as a former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would urge that we follow the recommendations of our ranking member and have this matter brought before the committee in a more proper and orderly way.…





