“robable cause provides legal justification for arresting a, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest,” Gerstein v. (1) The Act serves a well-established, legitimate government interest: the need of law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify persons and possessions taken into custody. (c) In this balance of reasonableness, great weight is given to both the significant government interest at stake in the identification of arrestees and DNA identification’s unmatched potential to serve that interest. 843, 855, n. 4, and reasonableness is determined by weighing “the promotion of legitimate governmental interests” against “the degree to which intrudes upon an individual’s privacy,” Wyoming v.
Because the need for a warrant is greatly diminished here, where the arrestee was already in valid police custody for a serious offense supported by probable cause, the search is analyzed by reference to “reasonableness, not individualized suspicion,” Samson v. And the fact that the intrusion is negligible is of central relevance to determining whether the search is reasonable, “the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search,” Vernonia School Dist. Using a buccal swab inside a person’s cheek to obtain a DNA sample is a search under the Fourth Amendment. (b) The framework for deciding the issue presented is well established. Respondent’s identification as the rapist resulted in part through the operation of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which connects DNA laboratories at the local, state, and national level, and which standardizes the points of comparison, i.e., loci, used in DNA analysis. 753, 760, and poses no threat to the arrestee’s “health or safety,” id., at 763. Here, the officer collected a DNA sample using the common “buccal swab” procedure, which is quick and painless, requires no “surgical intrusio beneath the skin,” Winston v. Only identity information may be added to the database. A sample may not be added to a database before an individual is arraigned, and it must be destroyed if, e.g., he is not convicted.
Maryland’s Act authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from, as relevant here, persons charged with violent crimes, including first-degree assault. 52, 55, by making it “possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty,” id., at 62. (a) DNA testing may “significantly improve both the criminal justice system and police investigative practices,” District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. Held: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Maryland Court of Appeals set aside the conviction, finding unconstitutional the portions of the Act authorizing DNA collection from felony arrestees. He moved to suppress the DNA match, arguing that the Act violated the Fourth Amendment, but the Circuit Court Judge found the law constitutional. The swab was matched to an unsolved 2003 rape, and King was charged with that crime. 12–207. Argued February 26, 2013-Decided June 3, 2013Īfter his 2009 arrest on first- and second-degree assault charges, respondent King was processed through a Wicomico County, Maryland, facility, where booking personnel used a cheek swab to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Act).
0 kommentar(er)
