Within our contemporary society, the Bill of Rights serves as symbol of the basic American freedoms and protects individuals from irrational government policies, which are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King, the culprit, Alonzo Jay King, utilized the Fourth Amendment after Maryland police arrested him for first and second-degree assault and swabbed his mouth to collect his DNA in order to check for any previous crimes committed. King argued that the practice of collecting DNA was unconstitutional because Maryland did not have a definite reason to analyze his DNA, as this intruded his privacy and that law enforcements would abuse the collection of DNA in order to convict people of unrelated …show more content…
For example, King states that intrusions into the body go beyond what is protected by the Fourth Amendment, as DNA analysis can reveal one's medical history, age, ethnicity, intelligence, and "propensity for violence and addiction". One is able to comprehend that King believed that his privacy interests outweighed the government's interests, as DNA tests can reveal private information that is not necessary to identify an individual and their prior crimes. Moreover, King considers the state's interest in decreasing crime rates, but argues that the government may only collect and analyze DNA of arrestees if they are convicted and if the collection would assist law enforcement in connecting the arrestee to the crime they were arrested for. The reader is able to identify that King states these two circumstances in order to implicitly convey that his situation is different and that the state has failed to show how DNA collection helps to solve crimes. Therefore, King effectively persuades the court by showing the significance of one's privacy over the interests of the …show more content…
For example, Maryland believed that DNA analysis helps to identify suspects more accurately and reduce future crimes, which would boost the public's confidence in law enforcement. The State even claimed that without the DNA Collection Act, which enabled the police to cheek swab from King, they would not have connected King to the sexual assault that he was ultimately accused of. Nevertheless, there is a risk in allowing Maryland to enforce its DNA Act for the purpose of only removing violent offenders. King actually acknowledges that DNA collection is beneficial because arrestees are more likely to have committed other crimes but hypothesizes that this logic can also be applied for other subgroups as well. For instance, young men, residents of particular neighborhoods, individuals from particular socioeconomic or educational backgrounds, or any other group that has a high incidence of criminal activity can be accused. King admits that while DNA testing helped solve a horrible rape in his case, Maryland should not be able to undergo warrantless searches, which would invade an individual's privacy. Therefore, considering one's privacy is more important than the objectives of the government in order to truly protect the