Tag Archives: Maryland

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”)

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.