On June 3, 2013, the Supreme Court handed down a widely-anticipated opinion
in Maryland v. King. In this case, the defendant’s DNA was
collected by the state after an arrest for first-degree assault. Though he pled to a lesser misdemeanor charge,
King’s DNA was found to be a match for an unsolved 2003 rape for which he was
eventually convicted. The Court
addressed the following issue: “whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the collection and analysis of a DNA sample from persons arrested, but not yet convicted, on felony charges.” Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, did
not examine the issue in isolation, but considered it in light of Maryland’s DNA Collection Act, which contained various protections for the accused. Specifically, DNA could only be
collected if the individual was charged with a violent crime, could not be
recorded or stored until after the individual was arraigned, and samples would
be destroyed if the criminal action did not result in a conviction; further,
the DNA could not be used for any purpose other than identification.
The Court found that the DNA collection (via buccal swab) was a search
for Fourth Amendment purposes, and employed a reasonableness test, balancing
the intrusion on the individual against the legitimate interests of the state. The intrusion, the Court held, was minimal; on
the contrary, the state’s interest (that is, “the need for law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify the persons and possessions they must take into custody”) was compelling. Justice Kennedy viewed this kind of DNA
collection as part of identification and booking procedures such as
fingerprinting or a “station-house search of the arrestee’s person and
possessions.” He also noted that “the Act provides statutory
protections that guard against further invasion of privacy.” Thus, by a five-four margin, the Court
upheld Maryland’s DNA Collection Act along with similar statutes in
twenty-eight states.
This opinion ignited controversy, and left lower courts
(particularly those in states without DNA collection statutes) with little
guidance regarding how to treat the collection of DNA from arrestees.
Some of the strongest objections have been from Fourth Amendment privacy
advocates (such as Justice Scalia), who note that “your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." The Ninth Circuit recently considered
the case of an individual found guilty of a drug conspiracy charge, who sought
to have his DNA and blood sample returned to him (and deleted from CODIS, the
federal database) after his period of supervised release was complete. The majority did not reach his Fourth
Amendment claim, but the dissent noted that King
had drastically expanded the pool of individuals subject to DNA testing by the
state— an estimated fifty-two percent of men are arrested at some point in
their lifetime.[1] These advocates argue that the individual’s
privacy interest should have been weighted more heavily by the Court.
Other advocates argue that the State’s interest should be weighted less
heavily, and question the identification rationale. Because of the permanent nature of
individuals’ DNA profiles, a law enforcement agency can obtain the same degree
of identification following an arrestee’s conviction as could be obtained
before the conviction.[2] Further, officers are usually required to
identify arrestees before sending DNA samples to be tested, so the King majority’s identification rationale
is redundant.[3]
Regardless of scholarly dispute on Maryland
v. King, lower courts have struggled to apply the Court’s reasoning in two
situations. First, courts in
jurisdictions without a DNA collection statute must determine whether such
searches may proceed without statutory authorization, and whether they (the
courts) have the authority to put protective limits on usage or storage absent
statutory law on the topic. Secondly,
courts are faced with cases where DNA was not taken at the time of arrest (the
“booking procedures” outlined in King)
but where prosecutors seek a court-ordered buccal swab for evidentiary purposes
sometime before trial and before conviction.
In United States v. Calhoun,
a federal district court summarized the issue:
The Supreme Court recently held that taking and analyzing a
cheek swab of an arrestee’s DNA is a legitimate police booking procedure that
is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment . . . but [here,] the government
requests that the Court require DNA testing at a time when the interests
identified in King – “the need for
law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify the
persons and possessions they must take into custody” – no longer apply. . . [T]o
assert that the collection of DNA would be done at this point as part of
legitimate police booking procedure would be a pretext; the defendant was
arrested approximately eight (8) months ago.[4]
To resolve this tension, the Court required the government to show
probable cause that “evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place”,
namely, the defendant’s DNA, and found that the government had not satisfied
that burden.[5]
The District Court for the Western District of New York addressed the
same question and reached a different conclusion. In
United States v. Navarro-Gonzales, as in Calhoun, the government sought a court-ordered buccal swab well
after the defendant had been arrested, intending to gather evidence for trial. The Court purported to apply a probable cause
test, and found that the government had satisfied its burden, but noted that King may have “alleviate[d] the need for
a showing of probable cause.”[6]
Ryan Watson
Senior Staffer, Criminal Law Practitioner
Image by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Starkey, via Wikimedia Commons.
[2]
Kelly Ferrell, Twenty-First Century
Surveillance: DNA “Data-Mining” and the Erosion of the Fourth Amendment, 51
Hous. L. Rev. 229, 241 (Fall 2013) (referring to State v. King, 42 A.3d 549, 579 (Md. 2012), rev’d, Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958
(2013)).
[3] Id. (citing Md. Code Regs.
29.05.1.4(K)-(L) (2012)).
[4] United States v. Calhoun, 2013 WL
3833206 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2013) (not yet reported).
[5] Id., at *1.
[6] United States v. Navarro-Gonzales, 2013
WL 3759956, *3 (W.D.N.Y. July 15, 2013) (slip op.).
This is a very interesting topic because it brings into question the future of the criminal justice system and whether it will struggle to keep up with lightning fast development of evolving technology. It is a very good article that really shows the plight of the lower courts when they are given vague orders and mandates that can result from this issue.
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing on DNA collection and its importance in such cases.The Phoenix law firm of My AZ Legal Team, PLLC has a reputation for providing their clients with a wide range of legal services including, but not necessarily limited to, criminal law, DUI defense, bankruptcy, debt settlement, family law, and immigration. It isn’t always easy to find the right attorney for your legal needs.arizona law firm
ReplyDelete