Maryland v. King

133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P's Act authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from “an individual who is charged with . . . a crime of violence or an attempt to commit a crime of violence; or . . . burglary or an attempt to commit burglary.” A crime of violence to includes murder, rape, first-degree assault, kidnapping, arson, sexual assault, and a variety of other serious crimes. Once taken, a DNA sample may not be processed or placed in a database before the individual is arraigned (unless the individual consents). If “all qualifying criminal charges are determined to be unsupported by probable cause . . . the DNA sample shall be immediately destroyed. DNA samples are also destroyed if “a criminal action begun against the individual . . . does not result in a conviction,” “the conviction is finally reversed or vacated, and no new trial is permitted,” or “the individual is granted an unconditional pardon.” No purpose other than identification is permissible. In 2003 a man concealing his face and armed with a gun broke into a woman’s home and raped her. The police were unable to identify or apprehend the assailant based on any detailed description or other evidence they then had, but they did obtain from the victim a sample of the perpetrator’s DNA. D was arrested in 2009 and charged with first- and second-degree assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. As part of a routine booking procedure for serious offenses, DNA was taken by applying a cotton swab or filter paper-known as a buccal swab-to the inside of his cheeks. That DNA matched the DNA taken from the 2003 rape victim. D was tried and convicted for the rape. The Court of Appeals ruled that the DNA taken when D was booked for the 2009 charge was an unlawful seizure because obtaining and using the cheek swab was an unreasonable search of the person. It set the rape conviction aside. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Both federal and state courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the collection and analysis of a DNA sample from persons arrested, but not yet convicted, on felony charges.