support@bluetogold.com

or use our live chat

888-579-7796

Customer Service

LEGAL

RESEARCH

Maryland v. King

Facts

The defendant was arrested for first and second-degree assault. At the jail, pursuant to state statute, officers used a cheek swab to collect a DNA sample from inside the defendantโ€™s mouth. This evidence caused the defendant to be identified as the perpetrator in an unsolved sexual assault.

Issue

Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the collection of a DNA sample from persons arrested, but not yet convicted, on felony charges?

Held

No. When the defendantโ€™s arrest upon probable cause for a serious offense results in detention, the government is reasonable in conducting a DNA swabbing is consistent with traditional identification procedures under the Fourth Amendment.

Discussion

The Court held that, though this was the first case it examined the DNA swab procedure, โ€œthe framework for deciding the issue is well established.โ€ โ€œIn some circumstances, such as โ€˜[w]hen faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like, the Court has found that certain general, or individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure reasonable.โ€™โ€ Citing Illinois v. McArthur.

The Court found that such a reasonable search occurred in this case, as the government has long been empowered to collect identifying information from lawfully arrested persons. โ€œA DNA profile is useful to the police because it gives them a form of identification to search the records already in their valid possession. In this respect the use of DNA for identification is no different than matching an arresteeโ€™s face to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect; or matching tattoos to known gang symbols to reveal a criminal affiliation; or matching the arresteeโ€™s fingerprints to those recovered from a crime scene.โ€

Citation

569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013)

Send a message!

Subscribe to Update