I’m definitely not Antonin Scalia’s biggest fan, but – as the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson writes – “if there’s ever a time when Antonin Scalia really rises to the occasion, it’s when he serves as the Supreme Court’s liberal conscience.”

His dissent from the recent SCOTUS ruling on Maryland v King is, like the somewhat recent ObamaCare ruling, a glimmer of hope amidst all the despair. For those of you who are wondering, Maryland v. King is about whether or not the government has the right to extract your DNA – once you are arrested (but not booked or taken to jail) – and place it into a national search database.

And, in case you are further wondering, the distinction I drew between being arrested and being booked or taken to jail is an important one. This is because cops can arrest you without ever using handcuffs. All they have to do is utter the magic words: “you’re under arrest.” So, as an example, a cop can pull you over for having a broken taillight and if he doesn’t like your attitude he can simply arrest you. You don’t even have to get out of your car.

Here is a breakdown:

1. a cop pulls you over for a busted taillight.
2. he doesn’t like your attitude.
3. he arrests you (again, no handcuffs necessary).
4. by law you now have to submit your DNA to a national database.

This is a flagrant assault on our liberties. The Roberts court came down in favor of the State of Maryland, which means that this dystopian scenario is now perfectly legal. Scalia wrote the dissent, with Leftists Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joining him. Below is Scalia’s very first sentence:

The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence.

There is more:

The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous.

In order to understand the perverse logic behind the Roberts court’s decision, you’ll have to read the whole thing. To read Scalia’s dissent, scroll down 29 pages. Again, I think everybody should read this – citizen and foreigner alike – because, as citizens, it is our duty to know what our government is up to and, as foreigners, it is helpful to get a glimpse into just how federal democracies function.

Ironically enough, one of the reasons the US is relatively freer than elsewhere in the world is because of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable government searches and seizures (I guess this would be the glimmer of hope?).

Legal scholar Orin Kerr has more (it’s much more informative, too).