A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that a California law requiring the taking of a DNA sample from every adult arrested for a felony does not violate the Constitution\u2019s prohibition on unreasonable searches. <\/p>\n
The panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold the law, which permits the collected samples to be stored in a nationwide database for potential use in future investigations. <\/p>\n
Challengers had argued in a class-action lawsuit that the DNA law \u2013 passed in 2004 as Proposition 69 \u2013 would facilitate the use of their DNA samples in future investigations without the government first obtaining a warrant or reasonable suspicion. They said such actions violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe conclude that the government\u2019s compelling interests far outweigh arrestees\u2019 privacy concerns,\u201d wrote Judge Milan Smith in a 33-page decision joined by Senior District Judge James Dale Todd. <\/p>\n
How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz. <\/p>\n
In a dissent, Judge William Fletcher said the DNA law ignores an important distinction that he said applies to the collection of fingerprints. <\/p>\n
\u201cFingerprints may be taken from an arrestee in order to identify him \u2013 that is, to determine whether he is who he claims to be. But fingerprints may not be taken from an arrestee solely for an investigative purpose, absent a warrant or reasonable suspicion that the fingerprints would help solve the crime for which he was taken into custody,\u201d Judge Fletcher wrote in his 27-page dissent. <\/p>\n
\u201cDNA samples are not taken from felony arrestees under Proposition 69 in order to identify them,\u201d he said. \u201cRather, they are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.\u201d <\/p>\n
The taking and storage of such DNA samples, solely for future investigations, is invalid under existing legal precedents, Fletcher said. <\/p>\n
Fletcher also noted that all four of the plaintiffs were arrested for felonies but none were convicted. Two were not even charged. <\/p>\n
Judge Smith said Fletcher\u2019s fingerprint and DNA analogy rested on an \u201cunprecedented and misguided reading of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cWere he correct, our entire criminal justice system would be upended,\u201d Smith said. \u201cFor example, under our dissenting colleague\u2019s theory, the police could never be allowed to match crime scene fingerprints to databases of prints collected from past arrestees.\u201d <\/p>\n
A key issue in the case was the difference between the privacy interests of an arrestee versus the privacy interests of a convicted felon. <\/p>\n
Forty-seven states and the federal government authorize DNA collection from all convicted felons, while 22 states and the federal government allow DNA collection as well from at least some arrestees. <\/p>\n
Plaintiffs had argued that not all arrestees will be convicted. A mere arrestee maintains a higher level of Fourth Amendment protection from government intrusions than convicted felons, they said. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe have never allowed the compulsory taking of DNA samples from mere arrestees. We should not begin now,\u201d Fletcher said. <\/p>\n
The majority judges countered that the actual DNA collection was a \u201cminor inconvenience\u201d involving a cotton swab scraped along the inside of a subject\u2019s cheek. <\/p>\n
Such an intrusion is far less than others in a jail setting, like strip searches and monitored use of the toilet and showers. <\/p>\n
Smith said the DNA testing and storage program fulfilled four important government interests. It helped to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, prevent future crimes, and exonerate the innocent. <\/p>\n
The majority rejected concerns that DNA data might be misused or contribute to an all-knowing surveillance state. \u201cAlthough plaintiffs use the phrase \u2018DNA profile\u2019 to evoke images of an oppressive \u2018Big Brother\u2019 cataloguing our most intimate traits, the reality is far less troubling,\u201d Smith wrote. <\/p>\n
California\u2019s law and others include safeguards restricting the use of the data for law enforcement identification purposes only, he said, similar to the use of the fingerprint database. <\/p>\n
The California law includes a mechanism for the expunging of DNA data in cases where charges were dropped or the arrestee was acquitted. But Fletcher noted that it is up to the arrestee to expend his or her own time and money to remove the data from the national database. <\/p>\n
How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz. <\/p>\n
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
See original here: A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that a California law requiring the taking of a DNA sample from every adult arrested for a felony does not violate the Constitution\u2019s prohibition on unreasonable searches. The panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold the law, which permits the collected samples to be stored in a nationwide database for potential use in future investigations. Continue reading
\nIs taking DNA a reasonable search? US judges uphold California law<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"