العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolR. V. RODGERS
'''R. v. Rodgers''', 2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554, is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the collection of blood samples from prisoners. The Court upheld a Criminal Code provision allowing for retroactive DNA samples of prisoners without notice.
Dennis Rodgers was a convicted sex offender who was serving his sentence in an Ontario prison. Since Rodgers was sentenced before the enactment of the 1998 ''DNA Identification Act'', his blood sample was not taken upon sentencing to be placed in the national database. Under the section 487.055(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, the Crown applied for an ex parte application for the DNA sample. Rodgers challenged the application on the basis that the enabling Code provision violated his Charter rights.
In a four to three decision the Court upheld the Code provisions. Justice Charron, writing for the majority found that the state's interest in his personal information is sufficient to outweigh Rodger's right to privacy. She notes that the DNA sample is akin to a finger print and will only be used for identification purposes. She also finds that the provision is procedurally fair and was a clear articulation of the legislature's intent.
★
★ case summary
| Contents |
| Background |
| Opinion of the Court |
| External links |
Background
Dennis Rodgers was a convicted sex offender who was serving his sentence in an Ontario prison. Since Rodgers was sentenced before the enactment of the 1998 ''DNA Identification Act'', his blood sample was not taken upon sentencing to be placed in the national database. Under the section 487.055(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, the Crown applied for an ex parte application for the DNA sample. Rodgers challenged the application on the basis that the enabling Code provision violated his Charter rights.
Opinion of the Court
In a four to three decision the Court upheld the Code provisions. Justice Charron, writing for the majority found that the state's interest in his personal information is sufficient to outweigh Rodger's right to privacy. She notes that the DNA sample is akin to a finger print and will only be used for identification purposes. She also finds that the provision is procedurally fair and was a clear articulation of the legislature's intent.
External links
★
★ case summary
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
