WASHINGTON — In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 this week to allow police to collect the DNA of person(s) suspected of “serious” crimes, exciting suspects across the country who are eager to receive their free handjobs.
Despite critics arguing that this new precedent violates the 4th amendment to the constitution which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, suspected criminals themselves have demonstrated their overwhelming support of the Court’s ruling, turning out in droves to police stations across the country to volunteer for this new “government handjobs program.”
RIGHT: Close your eyes and try to envision the polar opposite of the people in this photo. That’s who will actually be collecting your DNA. (CLICK TO ENLARGE)
“This doesn’t have anything to do with seizures,” said Local Suspected Criminal Larry Hefron when asked about the new law’s constitutionality. “It might look like that on the surface, but I promise you, it’s not seizures. I just shake a lot when I orgasm.”
Still other critics of the law are expressing concerns over the cost-effectiveness associated with DNA testing, particularly that it could cost tax payers a disproportionately large amount of money to implement the procedures while still only yielding a relatively small amount of criminal convictions.
Hoover, though, believes that, despite lab fees and other costs associated with the testing, the upfront cost of the procedure is still quite the bargain.
Said Hoover, ”Normally, a handy costs like 5 bucks…10 if [the prostitute] got all her fingers. And now the cops are givin’ ‘em out free? Sign me the fuck up.”
Added Hoover, “And fuck those critics, man. Police brutality has been going on for years. The only difference is that now, I can’t WAIT to get excessively beaten.”
At press time, it was reported that upon learning that the Supreme Court ruling does in fact violate the 4th amendment to the constitution due to the subjectiveness of the term “serious crime” as well as the fact that anyone can be checked for drug use without first being convicted of any crime – regardless of whether the crime of which the suspect stands accused is drug-related or not – the vast majority of the country eventually realized that this ruling does not come with a happy ending.
Or at least, as a simple fix, they should tweak the fourth by removing “not” so it says “…shall be violated…” Boom. Problem solved!
It’s BS. If you want that power, get a constitutional amendment.