Tag Archives: arrest

Reconsidering the “Considered Analysis”: How Convincing Are the Cases Cited in the Stay Order in Maryland v. King?

For nearly a decade, DNA-on-arrest laws eluded scrutiny in the courts. For another five years, they withstood a gathering storm of constitutional challenges. In King v. State, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. 2012), however, the Maryland Court of Appeals reasoned that usually fingerprints provide everything police need to establish the true identity of an individual before trial and that the state’s interest in finding the perpetrators of crimes by trawling databases of DNA profiles is too “generalized” to support “a warrantless, suspicionless search.” The U.S. Supreme Court reacted forcefully. Even before the Court could consider issuing a writ of certiorari, Chief Justice Roberts stayed the Maryland judgment. His chambers opinion signaled that “given the considered analysis of courts on the other side of the split, there is a fair prospect that this Court will reverse the decision below.”

Some thoughts on the lower court opinions and the issues the Supreme Court will confront are in press in the online Discourse section of the UCLA Law Review. The essay provides a more coherent, complete, and polished presentation than the scattered remarks in earlier postings on this blog. It briefly examines four sets of opinions–the early one from the Virginia Supreme Court in Anderson, the Third Circuit’s en banc opinions in Mitchell, the Ninth Circuit’s panel opinions in Haskell (vacated to make way for en banc review), and the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion in Mario W. Building on these judicial efforts, the essay outlines the Fourth Amendment questions that a fully considered analysis must answer, identifies questionable treatments of “searches” and “seizures” in the four sets of opinions, and criticizes the creative compromise in Mario W. that allows sample collection but not DNA testing before conviction.

I do not think that there is much room for compromise on the constitutional question. A couple of opinions maintain (in dictum) that preconviction collection is acceptable after, but not before, an indictment or preliminary hearing. That’s another compromise, of sorts, and the Maryland law (as the state has implemented it) postpones DNA collection until after a probable-cause-for-trial hearing. Thus, anything the Supreme Court will say in King on DNA collection as part of the booking procedure will be dictum. It seems to me, however, that once an individual is legitimately detained, either the Fourth Amendment permits the compulsory collection, analysis, and use of DNA–the whole ball of wax–as a biometric identifier for both authentication and criminal intelligence purposes or it does not.  Thus, I am betting that the Court will write a broad opinion upholding DNA database laws at all points after arrest.  But IMHO, it’s a close question.

References

David H. Kaye, On the “Considered Analysis” of Collecting DNA Before Conviction, 60 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse (forthcoming 2013) (preprint)

David H. Kaye, Drawing Lines: Unrelated Probable Cause as a Prerequisite to Early DNA Collection, 91 N.C. L. Rev. Addendum 1 (2012) (preprint)

Crossposted to Forensic Science, Statistics, and the Law.

The Constitutionality of DNA Collection Before Conviction: An Updated Scorecard

Note: This posting updates previous ones that have been deleted. It is current as of November 10, 2012.

Fifteen years ago, Louisiana adopted a law mandating that “[a] person who is arrested for a felony sex offense or other specified offense . . . shall have a DNA sample drawn or taken at the same time he is fingerprinted pursuant to the booking procedure.” As of early 2012, 26 states and the federal government had laws providing for DNA sampling before any conviction is obtained. Most other countries with DNA databases also collect samples on arrest.

The DNA-before-conviction (DNA-BC) laws in the U.S. had a placid childhood, with surprisingly few challenges to their constitutionality. This period of calm is over. In contrast to their older brother, laws mandating DNA collection after conviction (DNA-AC), which have been upheld in scores of cases, DNA-BC laws have provoked conflicting constitutional opinions. Yesterday, the Supreme Court voted to take up the issue in its 2012-2013 Term.

This posting presents a scoreboard on the litigation and scholarly commentary to date. If any players or contests have been omitted, I hope that readers will correct those omissions by leaving a comment. The law review articles listed in the table do not include ones on DNA-AC. Authors who have contended that these databases are unconstitutional would reach the same conclusion for a database that includes arrestees, but the lower courts have resoundingly rejected their analyses. Therefore, little would be gained by keeping track of the many articles on convicted-offender databases.

The tables make the point that there is no clear consensus among lower courts on the constitutionality of taking DNA samples during a custodial arrest (or at another point before conviction) with the intention of running database searches (in the absence of a warrant and probable cause to believe that the search will produce a hit in the database).


Table 1. Case law

Appellate: State Supreme Courts (1.5-1.5)

  • Mario W. v. Kaipio, Commissioner, 281 P.3d 476 (Ariz. 2012) (state arrestee law for juveniles constitutional insofar as it allows sampling as a booking procedure, but pre-conviction analysis of the sample is unconstitutional under a totality-of-the-circumstances standard and an analogy to searching containers)
  • King v. State, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. 2012) (state law requiring sampling after arraignment unconstitutional “as applied” under “totality of the circumstances” balancing test), cert. granted sub nom. Maryland v. King, No. 12-207 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2012)
  • Anderson v. Commonwealth, 650 S.E.2d 702 (Va. 2007) (state arrestee law upheld under unspecified balancing test and analogy to fingerprinting as a booking procedure)
  • Related case: State v. Franklin, 76 So.3d 423 (La. 2011) (no search warrant required to take a DNA sample from a murder defendant for use in the murder investigation because he had to submit a sample “as a routine incident of booking” anyway)

Appellate: State Intermediate Courts (opinions not reviewed by higher courts) (0-2)

  • People v. Buza, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (unconstitutional under balancing tests), rev. granted, 262 P.3d 854 (Cal. 2011)
  • In re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (state arrestee law struck down as per se unreasonable without probable cause and a warrant)

Appellate: Federal Courts (2-0)

  • United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (federal arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test)
  • Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2012) (state arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test), reh’g en banc granted, 686 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)
  • United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (federal arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test), vacated as moot, 659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
  • Related case: Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009) (an arrest does not justify DNA sampling without an applicable statute)

Trial Courts: Federal (not reviewed by higher courts) (1-1)

  • United States v. Thomas, No. 10-CR-6172 CJS, 2011 WL 1627321 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2011) (federal arrestee law upheld under “special needs” balancing test), dismissed, No. 11-1742 (2d Cir. Sept. 20, 2011), ECF No. 43.
  • Amended Order Denying the Government’s Motion to Compel DNA Samples, United States v. Frank, No. CR-092075-EFS-1(E.D. Wash. Mar. 10, 2010), available at http://www.dnaresource.com/documents/USvFrank.pdf (applying totality balancing to a limited list of interests to find compulsory collection before conviction unreasonable)
  • Related case: United States v. Purdy, No. 8:05CR204, 2005 WL 3465721 (D. Neb. 2005) (forcibly taking a buccal swab from an arrestee violates Fourth Amendment in the absence of a statute providing for a uniform and limited system of sampling)

Trial Courts: Federal (reviewed by higher courts) (2-1)

  • United States v. Mitchell, 681 F.Supp.2d 597 (W.D.Pa. 2009) (federal law held unenforceable), rev’d, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc)
  • United States v. Pool, 645 F.Supp.2d 903 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (federal arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test), aff’d, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010), affirming opinion vacated as moot, 659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
  • Haskell v. Brown, 677 F.Supp.2d 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (denying a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of California’s arrestee sampling law in large part because the balance of interests establishes that the requirement is reasonable), aff’d sub nom. Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, 686 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)


Table 2. Law Review Articles and Notes

Faculty

  • D.H. Kaye, The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling on Arrest, 10 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 455-508 (2001) (a statute with sufficient protections to confine the government to identifying information is constitutional under the special needs exception)
  • Tracey Maclin, Is Obtaining an Arrestee’s DNA a Valid Special Needs Search Under the Fourth Amendment? What Should (and Will) the Supreme Court Do?, 34 J.L. Med. & Ethics 165, 178-82 (2006) (predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold taking DNA from arrestees under a balancing test but stating that it should reject the practice as per se unreasonable)
  • D. H. Kaye, Who Needs Special Needs? On the Constitutionality of Collecting DNA and Other Biometric Data from Arrestees, 34 J.L. Med. & Ethics 188 (2006) (proposing a “biometric information exception” to the warrant requirement)
  • Brian Gallini, Step Out of the Car: License, Registration, and DNA Please, 62 Ark. L. Rev. 475 (2009) (Arkansas law unconstitutional because it does not require a judicial finding of probable cause arrest, contains inadequate safeguards to protect the samples and records, and because it does not fall within an established exception to the warrant requirement)
  • Kevin Lapp & Joy Radice, A Better Balancing: Reconsidering Pre-Conviction DNA Extraction from Federal Arrestees, 90 N. Car. L. Rev. Addendum 157 (2012) (pre-conviction DNA extraction should be permitted only after a neutral third-party finding of probable cause and DNA samples should be destroyed)
  • David H. Kaye, Drawing Lines: Unrelated Probable Cause as a Prerequisite to Early DNA Collection, 91 N.C. L. Rev. Addendum 1 (2012) (a formal finding of probable cause for an unrelated arrest is not constitutionally required)
  • David H. Kaye, On the “Considered Analysis” of DNA Collection Before Conviction, 60 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse, (forthcoming March 2013)
  • David H. Kaye, A Fourth Amendment Theory for Arrestee DNA and Other Biometric Databases, U. 15 Pa. J. Const. L. No. 4 (forthcoming 2013)
  • Related article: Robert Molko, The Perils of Suspicionless DNA Extraction of Arrestees Under California Proposition 69: Liability of the California Prosecutor for Fourth Amendment Violation? The Uncertainty Continues in 2010, 37 W. St. U. L. Rev. 183 (2010) (reaching no conclusions)

Student

  • Martha L. Lawson, Note, Personal Does Not Always Equal “Private”: The Constitutionality of Requiring DNA Samples from Convicted Felons and Arrestees, 9 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 645 (2001) (the government’s interest in mandatory testing of all those arrested outweighs individuals’ privacy interests)
  • Rene� A. Germaine, Comment, “You Have the Right to Remain Silent. . . You Have No Right to Your DNA” Louisiana’s DNA Detection of Sexual and Violent Offender’s Act: An Impermissible Infringement on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer Info. L. 759 (2004) (unconstitutional under balancing test other than special needs)
  • Robert Berlet, Comment, A Step Too Far: Due Process and DNA Collection in California after Proposition 69, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1481 (2007) (with certain modifications, arrestee DNA sampling as provided for under California law would be constitutional)
  • John D. Biancamano, Note, Arresting DNA: The Evolving Nature of DNA Collection Statutes and Their Fourth Amendment Justifications, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 619 (2009) (unconstitutional under special needs and totality of the circumstances tests)
  • Corey Preston, Note, Faulty Foundations: How the False Analogy to Routine Fingerprinting Undermines the Argument for Arrestee DNA Sampling, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 475 (2010)
  • Ashley Eiler, Note, Arrested Development: Reforming the Federal All-Arrestee DNA Collection Statute to Comply with the Fourth Amendment, 79 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 1201, 1220 (2011)
  • Lauren N. Hobson, Note, North Carolina’s Arrested Development: Fourth Amendment Problems in the DNA Database Act of 2010, 89 N.C. L. Rev. 1309 (2011) (unconstitutional because no existing exception to the Warrant Clause applies)
  • Kimberly A. Polanco, Note, Constitutional Law-The Fourth Amendment Challenge to DNA Sampling of Arrestees Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004: A Proposed Modification to the Traditional Fourth Amendment Test of Reasonableness, 27 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 483 (2005) (constitutional under a balancing test)
  • Related note: Jacqueline K. S. Lew, Note, The Next Step in DNA Databank Expansion? The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling of Former Arrestees, 57 Hastings L.J. 199 (2005) (unconstitutional as applied to “former arrestees”)


References

Martin Kaste, Wash. Lawmakers Fight for DNA Sampling at Arrest, All Things Considered, Feb. 28, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/02/28/147225828/wash-lawmakers-fight-for-dna-sampling-at-arrest, accessed Aug. 17, 2012

15 La . Rev. Stat. � 609(A)(1) (“A person who is arrested for a felony sex offense or other specified offense, including an attempt, conspiracy, criminal solicitation, or accessory after the fact of such offenses on or after September 1, 1999, shall have a DNA sample drawn or taken at the same time he is fingerprinted pursuant to the booking procedure.”), derived from Act No. 737, approved July 9, 1997, and amended in 2003 (adding the phrase “including an attempt, conspiracy, criminal solicitation, or accessory after the fact of such offenses”)

The Constitutionality of DNA Collection Before Conviction: An Updated Scorecard

Note: This scorecard has been superseded. Please check for later editions.

Fifteen years ago, Louisiana adopted a law mandating that “[a] person who is arrested for a felony sex offense or other specified offense . . . shall have a DNA sample drawn or taken at the same time he is fingerprinted pursuant to the booking procedure.” Today, the movement to acquire DNA from individuals not convicted of a crime and to check it against state and national databases of DNA profiles from unsolved crimes is snowballing. As of early 2012, 26 states and the federal government had laws providing for DNA sampling before any conviction is obtained. Most other countries with DNA databases also collect samples on arrest.

The DNA-on-arrest laws in the U.S. had a placid childhood, with surprisingly few challenges to their constitutionality. This period of calm is over. Conflicting opinions are emerging on the reasonableness of these searches under the Fourth Amendment. Within the next few years, it seems likely that, as Kansas State Representative Pat Colloton (R), who authored the bill that initiated her state’s DNA sampling program predicted, “this issue will go to the United States Supreme Court.” (Gramlich 2006). In fact, if U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has his way, the Court will take up the issue in its 2012-2013 Term.

This posting presents a scoreboard on the litigation and scholarly commentary to date. If any players or contests have been omitted, I hope that readers will correct those omissions by leaving a comment. The law review articles listed in the table do not include ones on the constitutionality of convicted-offender databases. Authors who have contended that these databases are unconstitutional would reach the same conclusion for a database that includes arrestees, but the lower courts have resoundingly rejected their analyses. Therefore, little would be gained by keeping track of the many articles on convicted-offender databases.

The tables make the point that as yet there is no consensus on the constitutionality of taking DNA samples during a custodial arrest with the intention of running database searches (in the absence of a warrant and probable cause to believe that the search will produce a hit in the database).


Table 1. Case law (as of August 17, 2012)

Appellate: State Supreme Courts (1.5-1.5)

  • Mario W. v. Kaipio, Commissioner, No. CV-11-0344-PR (Ariz. June 27, 2012) (state arrestee law for juveniles constitutional insofar as it allows sampling as a booking procedure, but pre-conviction analysis of the sample is unconstitutional under a totality-of-the-circumstances standard and an analogy to searching containers)
  • King v. State, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. 2012) (state arrestee law unconstitutional “as applied” under “totality of the circumstances” balancing test), pet.for cert. filed, Aug. 14, 2012
  • Anderson v. Commonwealth, 650 S.E.2d 702 (Va. 2007) (state arrestee law upheld under unspecified balancing test and analogy to fingerprinting as a booking procedure)
  • Related case: State v. Franklin, 76 So.3d 423 (La. 2011) (no search warrant was required to take a DNA sample from a murder defendant for use in the murder investigation because he had to submit a sample “as a routine incident of booking” anyway)

Appellate: State Intermediate Courts (opinions not reviewed by higher courts) (0-2)

  • People v. Buza, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (unconstitutional under balancing tests), rev. granted, 262 P.3d 854 (Cal. 2011)
  • In re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (state arrestee law struck down as per se unreasonable without probable cause and a warrant)

Appellate: Federal Courts (2-0)

  • United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (federal arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test)
  • Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2012) (state arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test), reh’g en banc granted, 2012 WL 3038593 (July 25, 2012)
  • United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (federal arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test), vacated as moot, 659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
  • Related case: Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009) (an arrest does not justify DNA sampling without an applicable statute)

Trial Courts: Federal (not reviewed by higher courts) (1-1)

  • United States v. Thomas, No. 10-CR-6172 CJS, 2011 WL 1627321 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2011) (federal arrestee law upheld under “special needs” balancing test), dismissed, No. 11-1742 (2d Cir. Sept. 20, 2011), ECF No. 43.
  • Amended Order Denying the Government’s Motion to Compel DNA Samples, United States v. Frank, No. CR-092075-EFS-1(E.D. Wash. Mar. 10, 2010), available at http://www.dnaresource.com/documents/USvFrank.pdf (applying totality balancing to a limited list of interests to find compulsory collection before conviction unreasonable)
  • Related case: United States v. Purdy, No. 8:05CR204, 2005 WL 3465721 (D. Neb. 2005) (forcibly taking a buccal swab from an arrestee violates Fourth Amendment in the absence of a statute providing for a uniform and limited system of sampling)

Trial Courts: Federal (reviewed by higher courts) (2-1)

  • United States v. Mitchell, 681 F.Supp.2d 597 (W.D.Pa. 2009) (federal law held unenforceable), rev’d, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc)
  • United States v. Pool, 645 F.Supp.2d 903 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (federal arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test), aff’d, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010), affirming opinion vacated as moot, 659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
  • Haskell v. Brown, 677 F.Supp.2d 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (denying a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of California’s arrestee sampling law in large part because the balance of interests establishes that the requirement is reasonable), aff’d sub nom. Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2012)


Table 2. Law Review Articles and Notes (as of August 17, 2012)

Faculty

  • D.H. Kaye, The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling on Arrest, 10 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 455-508 (2001) (a statute with sufficient protections of private, nonidentifying information is constitutional under the special needs exception)
  • Tracey Maclin, Is Obtaining an Arrestee’s DNA a Valid Special Needs Search Under the Fourth Amendment? What Should (and Will) the Supreme Court Do?, 34 J.L. Med. & Ethics 165, 178-82 (2006) (predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold taking DNA from arrestees under a balancing test but that it should reject the practice as per se unreasonable)
  • D. H. Kaye, Who Needs Special Needs? On the Constitutionality of Collecting DNA and Other Biometric Data from Arrestees, 34 J.L. Med. & Ethics 188 (2006) (proposing a “biometric information exception” to the warrant requirement)
  • Brian Gallini, Step Out of the Car: License, Registration, and DNA Please, 62 Ark. L. Rev. 475 (2009) (Arkansas law unconstitutional because it does not require a judicial finding of probable cause arrest, contains inadequate safeguards to protect the samples and records, and because it does not fall within an established exception to the warrant requirement)
  • Kevin Lapp & Joy Radice, A Better Balancing: Reconsidering Pre-Conviction DNA Extraction from Federal Arrestees, 90 N. Car. L. Rev. Addendum 157 (2012) (pre-conviction DNA extraction should be permitted only after a neutral third-party finding of probable cause and DNA samples should be destroyed)
  • —, Drawing Lines: Unrelated Probable Cause as a Prerequisite to Early DNA Collection,
    91 N.C. L. Rev. Addendum No. 1 (forthcoming 2012
  • David H. Kaye, A Fourth Amendment Theory for Arrestee DNA and Other Biometric Databases, U. 15 Pa. J. Const. L. No. 4 (forthcoming 2013)
  • Related article: Robert Molko, The Perils of Suspicionless DNA Extraction of Arrestees Under California Proposition 69: Liability of the California Prosecutor for Fourth Amendment Violation? The Uncertainty Continues in 2010, 37 W. St. U. L. Rev. 183 (2010) (reaching no conclusions)

Student

  • Martha L. Lawson, Note, Personal Does Not Always Equal “Private”: The Constitutionality of Requiring DNA Samples from Convicted Felons and Arrestees, 9 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 645 (2001) (the government’s interest in mandatory testing of all those arrested outweighs individuals’ privacy interests)
  • Rene� A. Germaine, Comment, “You Have the Right to Remain Silent. . . You Have No Right to Your DNA” Louisiana’s DNA Detection of Sexual and Violent Offender’s Act: An Impermissible Infringement on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer Info. L. 759 (2004) (unconstitutional under balancing test other than special needs)
  • Robert Berlet, Comment, A Step Too Far: Due Process and DNA Collection in California after Proposition 69, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1481 (2007) (with certain modifications, arrestee DNA sampling as provided for under California law would be constitutional)
  • John D. Biancamano, Note, Arresting DNA: The Evolving Nature of DNA Collection Statutes and Their Fourth Amendment Justifications, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 619 (2009) (unconstitutional under special needs and totality of the circumstances tests)
  • Corey Preston, Note, Faulty Foundations: How the False Analogy to Routine Fingerprinting Undermines the Argument for Arrestee DNA Sampling, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 475 (2010)
  • Ashley Eiler, Note, Arrested Development: Reforming the Federal All-Arrestee DNA Collection Statute to Comply with the Fourth Amendment, 79 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 1201, 1220 (2011)
  • Lauren N. Hobson, Note, North Carolina’s Arrested Development: Fourth Amendment Problems in the DNA Database Act of 2010, 89 N.C. L. Rev. 1309 (2011) (unconstitutional because no existing exception to the Warrant Clause applies)
  • Kimberly A. Polanco, Note, Constitutional Law-The Fourth Amendment Challenge to DNA Sampling of Arrestees Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004: A Proposed Modification to the Traditional Fourth Amendment Test of Reasonableness, 27 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 483 (2005) (constitutional under a balancing test)
  • Related note: Jacqueline K. S. Lew, Note, The Next Step in DNA Databank Expansion? The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling of Former Arrestees, 57 Hastings L.J. 199 (2005) (unconstitutional as applied to “former arrestees”)


References

John Gramlich, States Collecting DNA from Arrestees, July 27, 2006, http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=129960, accessed Nov. 28, 2009

Martin Kaste, Wash. Lawmakers Fight for DNA Sampling at Arrest, All Things Considered, Feb. 28, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/02/28/147225828/wash-lawmakers-fight-for-dna-sampling-at-arrest, accessed Aug. 17, 2012

15 La . Rev. Stat. � 609(A)(1) (“A person who is arrested for a felony sex offense or other specified offense, including an attempt, conspiracy, criminal solicitation, or accessory after the fact of such offenses on or after September 1, 1999, shall have a DNA sample drawn or taken at the same time he is fingerprinted pursuant to the booking procedure.”), derived from Act No. 737, approved July 9, 1997, and amended in 2003 (adding the phrase “including an attempt, conspiracy, criminal solicitation, or accessory after the fact of such offenses”)

Supreme Court to Review DNA Swabbing on Arrest??

According to the SCOTUS blog,

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., calling tests of the DNA of individuals arrested by police ‘a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes,’ on Monday cleared the way for the state of Maryland to continue that practice until the Supreme Court can act on a challenge to its constitutionality. The Chief Justice’s four-page opinion is here. A Maryland state court ruling against the practice will remain on hold until the Justices take final action.

One should not read these words as stating that the stay is in effect until the Justices decide whether Maryland constitutionally can take DNA from mere arrestees. That would require two further actions by the Court–“granting cert” and extending the stay while the Court decides the case–both unusual events. The Court receives over 8,000 petitions per year asking it to issue writs of certiorari–orders for lower courts to send the record to the Supreme Court for its review. The court grants on the order of 100 of them. It takes only four votes to grant a petition. (It used to require five.) Justice Scalia once called wading through piles of petitions and supporting materials “the most … onerous and … uninteresting part of the job.” [1]

Thus far, the Chief Justice has issued a order (on his authority as a Circuit Justice) temporarily blocking (“staying”) the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals judgment did not order the state to do anything (although its import hardly could be ignored). It reversed the decision of the state’s intermediate appellate court (that had upheld the constitutionality of Maryland’s DNA-on-arrest law) and remanded the case to that lower court for further proceedings. (I described some notable features of the original Maryland Court of Appeals opinion on April 26. [2])

The Chief Justice’s order remains in effect only until the other Justices of the Supreme Court get around to voting on Maryland’s petition for a writ of certiorarari. At that point, one of three things will happen: either (1) the Justices will grant the petition and decide to continue the freeze on the Maryland judgment while the Court reviews the case; (2) the Justices will grant the petition and let the stay elapse while they hear the case; or (3) they will deny the petition and leave the judgment of Maryland’s highest court undisturbed. [3]

Thus, the Court’s “final action” might be merely to decide not to act on the merits of the challenge to the constitutionality of the Maryland law. Denying cert has no precedential value. But the Chief Justice’s July 30 opinion predicts that the Court actually will review the case and issue an opinion that will uphold the constitutionality of the law. Because of the contentiousness of the constitutional question, the brief opinion is worth dissecting

The Chief Justice begins with the observation that “there is a reasonable probability this Court will grant certiorari.” He ought to know, but the reason he gives is not entirely convincing. He writes that:

Maryland’s decision conflicts with decisions of the U. S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits as well as the Virginia Supreme Court, which have upheld statutes similar to Maryland’s DNA Collection Act. … The split implicates an important feature of day-to-day law enforcement practice in approximately half the States and the Federal Government. … Indeed, the decision below has direct effects beyond Maryland: Because the DNA samples Maryland collects may otherwise be eligible for the FBI’s national DNA database, the decision renders the database less effective for other States and the Federal Government.

But this “split” is not like a split in the federal circuits on the constitutionality of the federal database law. That kind of split would throw a real monkey wrench into the operation of NDIS, the FBI’s National DNA Index System. The split here only affects timing and a fraction of all DNA profiles. That is, for those individuals who are convicted anyway, not taking DNA on arrest in Maryland only delays the time at which their profiles go into the database. Once the offender profiles are entered, a weekly database trawl should link them to any profiles in the database of crime-scene samples. Of course, this delay is not without costs. For example, some arrestees will commit other crimes, up to and including murder, in the period between arrest and conviction.

With respect to arrestees who never are convicted of offenses that trigger inclusion in the database, the state loses the opportunity to trawl the crime-scene database for their DNA profiles. Some of these individuals might be connected to these unsolved crimes, but many will not be. Thus, the split does not shut down the database system. It does reduce its efficiency by an amount that is not clearly known. As the Chief Justice puts it, “the decision renders the database less effective.”

Chief Justice Roberts also writes that “the decision below subjects Maryland to ongoing irreparable harm” because “[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” The latter quotation comes from the previous Chief Justice, who expressed this claim in New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U. S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (REHNQUIST, J., in chambers). But the notion that every court order that blocks enforcement of a duly enacted law in a state works an irreparable injury seems extravagant. Does the public suffer irreparable harm when someone on a Fort Lauderdale beach plays frisbee, flies a kite, attaches a hammock to a tree, or swims in long pants–all prohibited?

The more meaningful argument is that the Maryland ruling constitutes “an ongoing and concrete harm to Maryland’s law enforcement and public safety interests.” The Chief Justice explains: “According to Maryland, from 2009–the year Maryland began collecting samples from arrestees–to 2011, ‘matches from arrestee swabs [from Maryland] have resulted in 58 criminal prosecutions.'” But this statistic is wide of the mark. How many of these 58 prosecutions would the state have foregone had it been unable to enter the profiles at the point of the arrest rather than waiting until a conviction ensured?

The Chief Justice is correct in stating that “in the absence of a stay, Maryland would be disabled from employing a valuable law enforcement tool for several months,” but his opinion leaves unresolved the question of just how valuable it really is. This is a matter that surely will receive more attention if and when the full Court actually hears the case.

References

1. CSPAN, Justices in Their Own Words: Granting Certiorari,  http://supremecourt.c-span.org/Video/JusticeOwnWords.aspx

2. David H. Kaye, Maryland’s Highest Court’s Opinion on Arrestee DNA Is an Outlier, Forensic Science, Statistics, and the Law, Apr. 26, 2012, http://for-sci-law-now.blogspot.com/2012/04/foot-in-mouth-disease-in-maryland.html

3. H. Greely, The Supreme Court and Mandatory Collection of DNA from Arrestees — Stay Tuned!, http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2012/07/22/the-action-inaction-distinction-before-nfib-v-sebelius/

Cross-posted to the Forensic Science, Statistics, and the Law Blog.

Can King Reign? A Less-than-regal Edict in Maryland

Maryland’s highest court is its Court of Appeals. Three days ago, in King v. State [1], this court became the first supreme court of any state to hold that taking a DNA sample from an arrestee is unconstitutional. But you would not know this from the court’s opinion.

Instead, the Maryland court purports to follow “the Minnesota Supreme Court in C.T.L.” Considering that the Minnesota Supreme Court did not decide C.T.L. and that it has yet to consider the routine practice of taking DNA prior to arrest [2], this is no small feat.

The majority opinion in King, penned by Judge Glenn T. Harrell, Jr., contains additional gaffes. It refers to Judge Marjorie Rendell of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as a man, and it asserts that “Fourth Amendment analyses” should be “more stringent” than “a First Amendment ‘rational basis’ review” — whatever that may mean.

Of course, these infelicities do not mean that the opinion is wrong — although it is long on description and short on analysis. The balancing of state and individual interests that is pivotal to the opinion is less than lucid. We can get a sense of the court’s approach from its discussion of the individual interests that the opinion seeks to protect. To begin with, the Maryland court gives more weight than most courts do to the interest in being free from an unwanted but painless and relatively minor intrusion into one’s body. Judge Harrell writes that DNA

is collected by swabbing the interior of a cheek (or blood draw or otherwise obtained biological material). While the physical intrusion of a buccal swab is deemed minimal, it remains distinct from a fingerprint. We must consider that “[t]he importance of informed, detached and deliberate determinations of the issue whether or not to invade another’s body in search of evidence of guilt is indisputable and great.” Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770.

The puzzle here is that, if the physical intrusion is indeed minimal, why is it of “great importance” to have a “detached . . . determination” in the form of a judicial warrant? It cannot be the peculiar notion that laboratory analysis to produce an identifying profile is a separate search requiring a warrant. If that were so, the laboratory analysis of “abandoned” DNA of a suspect also would require a warrant. This might be a reasonable position–but the King court does not retreat from State v. Williamson, 993 A.2d 626 (Md. 2010). There, the police recovered and then analyzed DNA from a drinking cup given to a suspect at a police station, and the Maryland Court Appeals flatly rejected the separate-search argument. Furthermore, if the “physical invasion” aspect of the DNA collection were of such great importance, the state could avoid the impact of King by changing the method for collecting the DNA. Instead of a buccal swab, the arrestee could be asked to place his fingers on a sticky pad to which some cells would adhere.

The interest that actually seems to be driving the opinion is not that the arrestee is compelled open his mouth so that some cells can be scraped from the inside of his cheek. It is, in the King court’s words, the possibility that “the vast genetic treasure map that remains in the DNA sample retained by the State” will be read or released in violation of state law. But the opinion utterly fails to address whether the state’s possession of that unread map (the physical sample kept under lock and key) unreasonably interferes with a defined privacy interest. And even if it does, could not Maryland acquire the identification profiles — data that are nothing like “[a] person’s entire genetic makeup and history” — and then destroy the physical sample to satisfy the court’s oddly applied balancing test?

Despite its problems, both superficial and fundamental, the King opinion is not devoid of all redeeming value. For example, the court correctly distinguishes between the use of a biometric identifier for identification and its use of it for intelligence purposes. But the opinion sheds no new light on the constitutional issue and casts some grotesque shadows. Readers seeking a deeper analysis will have to look elsewhere [3].

References

  1. King v. State, No. 68, 2012 WL 1392636 (Md. Apr. 24, 2012)
  2. In re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
  3. David H. Kaye, A Fourth Amendment Theory for Arrestee DNA and Other Biometric Databases, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 15 (in press)

Postscript

Alan Lazerow pointed out that the court’s opinion does not have the superficial flaws that caused my jaw to drop and pen to move. Thankfully, the opinion as now posted on Maryland’s website and in Westlaw has these blemishes removed..

Cross-posted to the Forensic Science, Statistics and the Law.

Junk Science in United States v. Pool

Having granted en banc review in United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial Circuit could well produce as wild a set of conflicting opinions on DNA databases as it did in United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004).

The panel that heard the Pool case divided 2-1. Judge Callahan wrote an opinion upholding the federal law on taking DNA after an arrest but before a conviction that visiting Judge Lucero (of the Tenth Circuit) joined. Judge Lucero also wrote a separate opinion. Judge Schroeder dissented.

The briefs that informed these three opinions left something to be desired. Here, I’ll focus on one of my pet peeves–disingenuous or inane claims about the CODIS STR loci as a threat to privacy.

Appellant’s Opening brief (available from a link on EPIC’s website, along with a one-sided list of vaguely related articles) claims that “DNA profiles derived by STR may yield probabilistic evidence of the contributor’s race or sex.” [1] Probabilistic evidence of sex from autosomal STRs? The arresting officers or jailers need a genetic test for that?

Then the brief cites Simon Cole’s writing to support its sweeping statement that “scientific studies have debunked the notion that these regions of the genetic code are devoid of any biological function.” Yet, the brief cites no study that “debunks” the notion that the length polymorphisms of the CODIS tetranucleotide STRs lack “biological function.” The concurring opinion of Judge Lucero recognizes that Cole rejects the claim of functionality (for the moment). [2] However, a group in France has a theory and some data for a mechanism through which one such STR locus could regulate the expression of an enzyme. [3]

Finally, the brief proposes that the “specter of discrimination and stigma could arise where one or more STRs is found to correlate with another genetic marker whose function is known, so that the presence of the seemingly innocuous STR serves as a ‘flag’ for that genetic predisposition or trait.” [4] As an example of this flag theory, an accompanying footnote states that: “A study in England from 2000 found that one of the markers used in DNA identification is closely related to the gene that codes for insulin, which itself relates to diabetes.” [5]

The accused STR is TH01. It has been used in many studies investigating the association between (a) SNPs, VNTRs, and this STR in a complex of genes and (b) a large number of diseases. Unsurprisingly, associations have been observed. Some of the reported associations were spurious and were not replicated. Other associations probably are real. This does not mean that TH01, by itself, is a useful predictor of any of these diseases in a given population. In fact, one forensic biologist used the 2000 paper cited in Pool’s brief to show that “such associations [between forensic STRs and disease-causing alleles in genes] are so ridiculously weak that serious protest could never form.” [6] His explanation follows:

This is illustrated well by the possible association between certain alleles of an STR named TH01 and diabetes type 1 (Bennett and Todd, 1996; Stead et al., 2000). TH01 alleles are used routinely in DNA typing, and for a minute, the manufacturers of genetic fingerprint kits started to feel the heat over the possible association between an exonic illness and an intronic allele. Fortunately, it takes just a pen and a piece of paper to brush off possible concerns: four out of 1000 Europeans will eventually get diabetes type 1. If you carry one of the ‘risk’ alleles in the intronic TH01 region, your chances of getting diabetes type 1 is 0.13 out of 1000. If I find out that you are carrying the alleged risk allele in my laboratory during DNA typing, I could–but I am not allowed to–calculate your total risk for diabetes as 0.4 � 1.3 = 0.52%. In plain language: in the worst case scenario, one allele of your possible genetic fingerprint might tell me that your general risk of getting diabetes type 1 is increased from 0.4 to 0.52%. All other alleles will not tell me anything about you, or your potential risk for illnesses. Abuse of such information is impossible because it simply has no practical predictive value.

I do not want to “brush off possible concerns,” and I understand the pressures and temptations of advocacy. Still, I wonder whether the Sacramento Federal Defender consulted the scientific literature on TH01 before citing an old study. Or whether he knew that the claims in the law review essay cited in the brief were the subject of an extensive rejoinder in the same journal. [7] If he did, he choose not to share this fact with the court. To my mind, that is not good advocacy.

Notes

1. Brief at 12 (quoting from a plurality opinion in Kincade).
2. 621 F.3d at 1230.
3. See Rolando Meloni, Post-genomic Era and Gene Discovery for Psychiatric Diseases: There Is a New Art of the Trade? The Example of the HUMTH01 Microsatellite in the Tyrosine Hydroxylase Gene, 26 Molecular Neurobiology 389 (2001).
4. Brief at 12
5. Id. at 12 n.8.
6. Mark Benecke, Coding orNon-coding?, That Is the Question, 3 European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 498 (2002).
7. David H. Kaye, Please, Let’s Bury the Junk: The CODIS Loci and the Revelation of Private Information, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 70 (2007).

Replicating Samples to Invade Privacy?

It is tough for lawyers to get science right. I say this not to denigrate lawyers–I am one myself–but to stress the importance of taking the time and effort to communicate the scientific facts clearly so that the value judgments are persuasive. An article attacking the constitutionality of an Arkansas law on DNA sampling from arrestees illustrates this point. In “Step Out of the Car: License, Registration, and DNA Please,” Associate Professor Brian Gallini of the University of Arkansas School of Law, gives an account of DNA profiling that makes it appear that the process of forensic DNA profiling reveals “the totality of a person’s genetic makeup” to arrive at an identification profile. At least, that is how the following exposition of DNA profiling for identification could be read:

[E]ven the layperson knows that taking a DNA sample requires an intrusion into the body, which thereafter reveals the totality of a person’s genetic makeup. … Although courts have characterized DNA swabs as only “minimally intrusive,” they do so without recognizing … the intrusion upon the arrestee’s interest in keeping the information revealed by a DNA sample private. From a buccal swab, the state obtains an analyzable sample of an arrestee’s DNA. That, in turn, allows the state to perform a polymerase chain reaction procedure (PCR), which involves replicating the DNA sample. This replication then allows the tester to look at “short tandem repeats” (STR). At this stage, the STRs reveal specific areas of DNA known as “loci.” In total, the tester is looking to isolate thirteen different loci in order to identify an individual’s exact genetic makeup. Once complete, the sample potentially “provides the instructions for all human characteristics, from eye color to height to blood type.”

What is wrong with this picture. Let me count the ways:

  1. PCR does not replicate the DNA sample. Human cells can replicate the full nuclear genome, but PCR can only replicate short stretches of DNA from targeted locations–the loci.
  2. Replication itself does not allow the tester to look at STRs. Visualization or ascertainment comes later.
  3. STRs do not “reveal specific areas of DNA known as ‘loci.'” An STR is a certain type of DNA sequence that occurs at, well, an STR locus. PCR primers used in forensic identification amplify only the sequences at these loci. The rest of the genomes remains terra incognito.
  4. The tester is not seeking “to identify an individual’s exact genetic makeup.” Rather, the laboratory is seeking to ascertain a small number of variations that are not in genes (or not in the exons of genes).
  5. The physical sample was complete before it was typed. “Once complete,” the tiny profile cannot possibly “provide[] the instructions for all human characteristics, from eye color to height to blood type.” The STR typing never gives any instructions for phenotypes.

Do these corrections mean that samples could not be used to gain information about human phenotypes such as eye color? Of course not. Eye color is a phenotype that can be deduced (in some instances) from genotyping. But such genotyping is not STR profiling.

And how much would it invade your privacy if a laboratory technician were to figure out your eye color in this roundabout way–instead of looking you in the eye? But that’s another story, and I have argued elsewhere against indefinite sample retention.

Reference

Brian Gallini, Step Out of the Car: License, Registration, and DNA Please, 62 Ark. L. Rev. 475 (2009)

DNA Database Overhaul Proposed in Pennsylvania

The majority leader of the Pennsylvania Senate, Dominic Pileggi, just introduced a bill to make major changes in the state’s law enforcement DNA database system. The most significant change is the requirement that individuals who are merely arrested for certain crimes must provide a DNA sample for inclusion in the state database. About half the states now have such laws, although (as noted an earlier posting to this blog) their constitutionality is the subject of continuing litigation. This bill is relatively moderate in its approach to arrestee sampling. There must be a judicial finding of probable cause (or a waiver of the preliminary hearing). The DNA profiles must be removed from the database if there is no conviction. The samples may not be used for kinship searching (a topic of previous postings).

The bill requires the state police to develop and implement procedures for kinship searching. Maryland and the District of Columbia prohibit kinship searching, and California, Colorado, New York, Texas, and Virginia conduct such searches in the absence of explicit statutory authority. Currently there is confusion in Pennsylvania over whether disclosure of near matches to local officials is permissible. The state police contend that “Although familial searching has the potential to be a great investigative tool, implementation at this early stage, without direct legislative approval and a standard national policy, is premature.” Flam (2011). Obviously, the notion that in a federation of states, no state should act before “a standard national policy exists” is somewhat strange. Mimicking the policy adopted by executive action in California, the bill restricts kinship searches to cases in which other investigative methods have failed. Unlike the California policy, however, the bill imposes no artificial floor on the number of autosomal alleles that must match. Instead, it requires administrative rule-making to arrive at more “scientifically valid and reliable” procedures.

A unique provision in the bill states that “No DNA sample or DNA record shall be used for human behavioral genetic research.” This prohibition is superfluous. See Kaye (2006). The bill states that “the tests to be performed on each DNA sample shall be used only for law enforcement identification purposes or to assist in the recovery or identification of human remains from disasters or for other humanitarian identification purposes, including identification of missing persons,” and it defines “Law enforcement identification purposes” as “Assisting in the determination of the identity of an individual whose DNA is contained in a biological sample.” Human behavioral genetic research is not an “identification purpose.”

Whether the state can afford an expansion in the databank is unclear. In the absence of adequate data on the effectiveness of DNA sampling on arrest, a cost-benefit analysis of the proposal is all but impossible. Over ten years ago, the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence avoided taking a stand on arrestee sampling on that ground that with large backlogs of crime-scene and offender samples awaiting analysis, adding arrestee samples was premature. The Commission suggested that the issue be readdressed in 2005.

References

Faye Flam, Colorado D.A. Offers Philadelphia Help in Kensington Strangler Case, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 10, 2011.

David H. Kaye, Behavioral Genetics Research and Criminal DNA Databanks, 69 Law and Contemporary Problems, 259 (2006), reprinted in revised form as Behavioral Genetics Research and Criminal DNA Databases: Laws and Policies, in The Impact of Behavioral Science in Criminal Law 355-387 (N. Faranhy ed., New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

Senate Bill 775, Pennsylvania General Assembly, introduced Mar. 15, 2011.

DNA on Arrest: The Score is Tied

Twelve years ago, Louisiana adopted a law mandating that “[a] person who is arrested for a felony sex offense or other specified offense . . . shall have a DNA sample drawn or taken at the same time he is fingerprinted pursuant to the booking procedure.” Today, the movement to acquire DNA from individuals not convicted of a crime and to check it against state and national databases of DNA profiles from unsolved crimes is snowballing. There now are 21 states with similar laws. In this year alone, seven states — a full one-third of the total — enacted such laws. (Williams 2009).

These laws have had a placid childhood, with surprisingly few challenges to their constitutionality. This period of calm is coming to an end, as conflicting opinions on the reasonableness of these searches under the Fourth Amendment emerge. Within the next few years, it seems likely that, as Kansas State Representative Pat Colloton (R), who authored the bill that initiated her state’s DNA sampling program predicted, “this issue will go to the United States Supreme Court.” (Gramlich 2006).

This posting presents a scoreboard on the litigation and scholarly commentary to date. It is based on preliminary research. If any players or contests have been omitted, I hope that readers will correct those omissions by leaving a comment. The law review articles listed in the table do not include ones arguing that convicted-offenders databases are unconstitutional. These authors would reach the same conclusion for a database that includes arrestees, but since the lower courts have resoundingly rejected their analyses, little would be gained by keeping track of them here.

The tables are descriptive rather than critical. They simply make the point that as yet there is no consensus on the constitutionality of taking DNA samples during a custodial arrest with the intention of running database searches (in the absence of a warrant and probable cause to believe that the search will produce a hit in the database). Later, I shall be commenting on some of the more superficial, if not silly, arguments that are surfacing in the pending cases.

Table 1. Caselaw on the Constitutionality of Statutes
Mandating DNA Sampling on Arrest (Nov. 28, 2009)

Appellate: Highest Courts (1-0)
● Anderson v. Commonwealth, 650 S.E.2d 702 (Va. 2007) (state arrestee law upheld under unspecified balancing test and analogy to fingerprinting as a booking procedure)
Appellate: Intermediate Courts (0-1)
● In re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (state arrestee law struck down as per se unreasonable without probable cause and a warrant)
● Related case: Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009) (an arrest does not justify DNA sampling without an applicable statute)
Federal District Courts (1-1)
● United States v. Pool, CR. No. S-09-0015 EJG, 2009 WL 2152029 (E.D.Cal. July 15, 2009)
(federal arrestee law upheld under “totality of circumstances” balancing test) (oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in docket no. 09-10303 scheduled for the second week of December)
● United States v. Mitchell, No. 2:09cr105, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103575 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2009) (federal law held unenforceable as per se unreasonable)
● Pending: Haskell v. Brown, 09-cv-04779-CRB (N.D. Cal. 2009) (challenge to California law adopted by proposition, no clear standard articulated by either party) (hearing on preliminary injunction scheduled for December 4)

Table 2. Law Review Articles and Notes on the Constitutionality
of Statutes Mandating DNA Sampling on Arrest (Nov. 28, 2009)

Faculty: (1-1)
● D.H. Kaye, The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling on Arrest, 10 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 455-508 (2001) (a statute with sufficient protections of private, nonidentifying information is constitutional under the special needs exception)
● Tracey Maclin, Is Obtaining an Arrestee’s DNA a Valid Special Needs Search Under the Fourth Amendment? What Should (and Will) the Supreme Court Do?, 34 J.L. Med. & Ethics 165, 178-82 (2006) (predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold taking DNA from arrestees under a balancing test but that it should reject the practice as per se unreasonable)
● D. H. Kaye, Who Needs Special Needs? On the Constitutionality of Collecting DNA and Other Biometric Data from Arrestees, 34 J.L. Med. & Ethics 188 (2006) (proposing a “biometric information exception” to the warrant requirement)
Student (2-2)
● Martha L. Lawson, Note, Personal Does Not Always Equal “Private”: The Constitutionality of Requiring DNA Samples from Convicted Felons and Arrestees, 9 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 645 (2001) (the government’s interest in mandatory testing of all those arrested outweighs individuals’ privacy interests)
● Reneé A. Germaine, Comment, “You Have the Right to Remain Silent. . . You Have No Right to Your DNA” Louisiana’s DNA Detection of Sexual and Violent Offender’s Act: An Impermissible Infringement on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 759 (2004) (unconstitutional under balancing test other than special needs)
● Kimberly A. Polanco, Note,  Constitutional Law-The Fourth Amendment Challenge to Dna Sampling of Arrestees Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004: a Proposed Modification to the Traditional Fourth Amendment Test of Reasonableness, 27 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 483 (2005) (constitutional under a balancing test)
● John D. Biancamano, Note, Arresting DNA: The Evolving Nature of Dna Collection Statutes and Their Fourth Amendment Justifications, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 619 (2009) (unconstitutional under special needs and totality of the circumstances tests)
● Related note: Jacqueline K. S. Lew, Note, The Next Step in DNA Databank Expansion? The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling of Former Arrestees, 57 Hastings L.J. 199 (2005) (unconstitutional as applied to “former arrestees”)

References

John Gramlich, States Collecting DNA from Arrestees, July 27, 2006, http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=129960, accessed Nov. 28, 2009

Richard Williams, Taking DNA Samples from Arrestees, 17 Legisbrief No. 40, Oct. 2009, http://www.ncsl.org/?TabId=18715, accessed November 28, 2009

15 La . Rev. Stat. § 609(A)(1) (“A person who is arrested for a felony sex offense or other specified offense, including an attempt, conspiracy, criminal solicitation, or accessory after the fact of such offenses on or after September 1, 1999, shall have a DNA sample drawn or taken at the same time he is fingerprinted pursuant to the booking procedure.”), derived from Act No. 737, approved July 9, 1997, and amended in 2003 (adding the phrase “including an attempt, conspiracy, criminal solicitation, or accessory after the fact of such offenses”) and 2009.