Daffnee

Why Moot Court, Though Time Consuming, Is Still Better Than Being On A Journal

(A) Once upon a time, Congress passed the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000.
(B) At about the same time -- that is, 2000 -- the Supreme Court got together (they didn't have confirmation buzz to distract them back then) and decided that:
  (1) You can't have narcotics checkpoints without warrants for all the drivers that come through, especially if you're from Indianapolis.
  (2) You can't test mothers to see if they're cokeheads and then tell the police if they are (especially if you're in Charleston).
  (3) It's ok to search a probationer's house with a warrant if he's dumb enough to
    (a) Not pay his power bill
    (b) Get his power cut off
    (c) Cause $1.5 million dollars in damage to a local power plant by way of revenge.

Now, what's funny is that when a bunch of prisoners get upset because of the law in (A), the courts run to (1), (2), and (3) to figure out if they have a right to be angry or they're just a bunch of dudes that got bored with lifting weights in the prison gym.

The reason these convicted felons are upset is that they don't want to give blood samples for their state's DNA database. That's understandable, especially if you plan on getting out and committing more felonies, or if you managed to not get nailed for some felonies you did do before you got into prison. By and large, everyone who's called a judge and sits behind a bench aren't very sympathetic -- I think there's 2 judges somewhere in the nation that say that the DNA Act is unconstitutional, and everyone else thinks it's just dandy.

Unfortunately (but fortunately for me), they don't think it's dandy for the same reasons. Half of the country thinks it's great because it's a reasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, so it's not really a big deal that the police didn't do the honourable thing and get a warrant. The other ones think it's great because even though it is an illegal search and seizure of a felon's bodily fluids, it satisfies a "special need" beyond ordinary law enforcement and it's "special" enough to make it OK.

I personally think this basically amounts to the same thing. Something is apparently OK because it's OK. I'm not sure why half the country calls it a "special need" and the other thinks it's just "reasonable". I have a theory that the only reason there isn't a national consensus on the issue is because a few clerks had a little too much fun on their $40k a year (plus future clerking bonuses at XYZ LLP) and forgot to tell the judges that the "special needs" doctrine was an exception, and not a rule.

That said, I'm grateful for the very intelligent dissent among the circuit courts because it means that I get to write about it for my moot court problem next year. I have spent a wonderful Sunday reading about felons with strong attachments to their bodily fluids, talking to Mark for the first time in ages and reminiscing about Belarus in the Nagano Olympic hockey semifinal. I have consumed pork chops and many slices of chocolate cake. There is a boy in my room reading a novel dressed in a t-shirt and boxers. I called my Mum while my family is passed out comatose in my sister's dorm room after a ridiculous Sunday seafood buffet in Vancouver.

Fun fun.