When the conviction was first challenged, Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera of the Maryland Court of Appeals told The Baltimore Sun, “The police would have analyzed the fingerprints to reveal their identifying characteristics and compared them to any fingerprint evidence collected at the victim’s home,” she wrote. “The only distinction that reasonably can be drawn is that the DNA test results in the present case directly linked Petitioner not merely to the crime scene but also directly and with certainty to the rape of the victim.”In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that police could take DNA from people arrested for serious crimes. Raynor was not under arrest when the police collected his DNA. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Raynor agreed to go in for questioning during the investigation, and police collected his DNA from his chair without his knowledge. The EFF claims that by refusing to hear this case, the Supreme Court is allowing for the creation of a nationwide database culled together from randomly sourced DNA.
via You’re always shedding DNA, and now the police can use it as evidence | The Verge.
Indiĝenaj Inteligenteco 