Reprinted from Bloomberg News
DNA Testing at Arrest Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review
By Greg Stohr - November 10, 2012
The
U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether states can routinely collect DNA samples
when people are arrested for a serious crime, in a case that may limit privacy
rights and give police a powerful investigative tool.
The
justices yesterday said they will hear Maryland’s bid to revive Alonzo Jay King
Jr.’s conviction for a 2003 rape. The state’s highest court threw out the
conviction. It said authorities violated King’s constitutional rights when they
arrested him on unrelated assault charges in 2009 and took a cheek swab that
provided DNA evidence connecting him to the rape.
At
least 26 states and the federal government obtain DNA samples from newly
arrested people. Advocates say the practice has helped police investigate
thousands of crimes and prevented countless others from taking place.
A
state “can solve crimes faster, it can identify suspects with greater accuracy,
and it can reduce the risk of setting a dangerous criminal free due to its
failure to identify him as such,” Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler
argued in the state’s appeal. Maryland collects DNA evidence from anyone
arrested for crimes of violence or burglary.
The
court yesterday also agreed to hear a challenge to a central prong of the
Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 civil rights statute.
The
Maryland Court of Appeals, voting 5-2, said DNA samples “contain a massive amount
of deeply personal information.” The state court said the Constitution’s Fourth
Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches, protects people who haven’t been
convicted from having to provide DNA evidence.
Expectation of Privacy
“Although
arrestees do not have all the expectations of privacy enjoyed by the general
public, the presumption of innocence bestows on them greater protections than
convicted felons, parolees or probationers,” the Maryland court majority said.
King’s
lawyers urged the Supreme Court not to take up the case, arguing that the nine
justices would benefit from letting more judges consider the issue first. The
lower courts that have taken up the question are divided.
Chief
Justice John Roberts blocked the Maryland court ruling in July, letting the
state continue collecting DNA samples.
“Crimes
for which DNA evidence is implicated tend to be serious, and serious crimes
cause serious injuries,” Roberts wrote. “That Maryland may not employ a
duly-enacted statute to help prevent these injuries constitutes irreparable
harm.”
National Database
Roberts
said the Maryland decision would have nationwide ramifications because the
state’s system is linked to a national DNA database maintained by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
In
April the Supreme Court upheld the use of strip searches of newly arrested
people. The court divided 5-4, voting along ideological lines.
Maryland
contends that DNA swabs are little different from fingerprinting, a procedure
that has been a routine part of police booking for decades. The state argues
that it uses DNA samples only for identification purposes and doesn’t analyze
the genetic coding that determines a person’s biological traits.
The
court will hear arguments in February or March and rule by the end of June in
the case, Maryland v. King, 12-207.
No comments:
Post a Comment