"Your DNA can be used against you in court."

The US Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal against the decision of a lower court in Maryland, the verdict of which was based on the DNA of the defendant. A prisoner serving a life sentence claimed that the prosecution was illegal because he had not signed the work permit for his DNA.

One Glenn Raynor in 2009 was convicted by a Maryland court on rape charges. The prosecution was based on the defendant’s DNA samples, which he categorically refused to provide to the police for investigation. Then, after questioning Raynor, the agents collected sweat samples from the chair on which he sat during the procedure and used them to confirm his guilt. The match was complete. Raynor, with the help of lawyers, appealed to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence was obtained illegally because he did not give consent to the collection of biomaterials.

The judges refused to hear the case. The motivation is simple: if the DNA was obtained without the direct removal of biomaterials, then this is the same method of identifying a person as fingerprints or facial features. The fourth US Amendment, which guarantees that the search warrant for the objects to be arrested was not violated.
')
In connection with this case, law professor Byron Varnken asks a question : “If the mobile phone of a suspect in a crime is in the hands of the investigation, then the police cannot investigate its contents without a special warrant. But then it turns out that the technical device has a higher level of privacy than a person whose DNA was obtained without his consent and without a court decision? ”