Maryland v. King

Last updated

Maryland v. King
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 26, 2013
Decided June 3, 2013
Full case nameMaryland, Petitioner v. Alonzo Jay King, Jr.
Docket no. 12-207
Citations569 U.S. 435 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 1958; 186 L. Ed. 2d 1
Case history
PriorKing v. State, 422 Md. 353, 30 A.3d 193 (2011); opinion after grant of cert., 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1006(2012).
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
DissentScalia, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [1]

Contents

The majority balanced state interests relating to detaining and charging arrestees against the affected individuals' interests in their bodily integrity and informational privacy. It concluded that it is constitutionally reasonable for the state to undertake the "negligible" physical intrusion of swabbing the inside of the legitimately detained arrestee's cheeks and using limited data from the DNA to determine whether the individual might be associated with a crime scene or victim.

Background and Procedural Posture

Alonzo Jay King Jr. was arrested for first and second-degree assault. The case was heard before the Supreme Court in February 2013, and a verdict was released four months later, in June 2013. As according to Maryland police protocol, the Maryland DNA Collection Act, a DNA sample was taken from King at the time of the arrest and entered into Maryland's database. It was matched to an unsolved rape case in 2003.

A Maryland officer presented the evidence to a Wicomico County grand jury, which called for an indictment, procured a warrant to obtain a second buccal DNA sample that could be used as incriminating evidence for the 2003 rape case.

King filed a motion to suppress the DNA evidence, stating that it infringed upon his Fourth Amendment rights, which prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. His motion was denied, and King pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape and appealed the ruling. The Maryland Court of Appeals then reversed the original ruling, agreeing that the DNA sampling was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and could not be used as evidence.

The State of Maryland then appealed the ruling and called for the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States. [2] Dr. Steven D. Schwinn's article titled "Fourth Amendment," published by the American Bar Association, best gives a full detailed progression of the case.

Decision and Dissenting Opinion

The decision was close, 5-4 in favor of Maryland. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, described Maryland's law as follows:

The Act authorizes Maryland 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."

Maryland law defines a crime of violence to include murder, rape, first-degree assault, kidnaping, 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). It is then that a judicial officer ensures that there is probable cause to detain the arrestee on a qualifying serious offense.

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." [3]

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, filed a scathing dissenting opinion. The justices maintained that "categorically" and "without exception," "The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence." [4] Some Supreme Court cases seem to contradict this position. [5]

The dissent also warned that, "[a]s an entirely predictable consequence of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." [6]

Justice Scalia took the rare step of reading his dissent from the bench, "signaling deep disagreement" on the Court. [7]

Genetic and Law Enforcement Technology

Maryland's DNA database laws began in 1994 and continued to expand until 2002. All felonies and some misdemeanors would result in that the suspect DNA is entered into the State CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) database. [8] The DNA is collected using a buccal swab, which is a brush inside of the cheek. The DNA from the cheek cells in the swab is replicated, is given a restriction enzyme digest, and is electrophoresed.

Electrophoresis separates DNA segments by their size, and different people have unique sizes of segments of DNA because of variations in the DNA sequence. The sequence modification allows governments, like Maryland's, to identify the alleles, versions of some loci or gene, of a person in the DNA. The collection of genetic markers allows for high precision identification of a suspected criminal from the DNA samples found at crime scenes or on victims.

The genetic markers from an individual are searched against all other felons and arrestees in the database when police are attempting to compile evidence by the use of blood, saliva, skin, or other bodily fluids.

Implications

Maryland v. King presented competing issues regarding social ethics and the law. The case deals with the issue of consent, because King did not give consent to a cheek swab that led to his DNA being entered into the Maryland CODIS database. [8] However, King did not find that to be an issue until after his arrest for a rape that took place nearly a decade earlier, predicated on the fact that his DNA matched DNA acquired from the original rape victim. Regardless of how the evidence was obtained, King was considered a danger to society because of his association with a prior violent crime.

King and his lawyers argued that even a rapist is still a rightful citizen of society, who deserves equal protection according to the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment declares that no person shall be subject to an unreasonable search or seizure, which may be assumed to include DNA tests. Furthermore, after King was apprehended because his DNA was matched with a sample collected from a rape case, King's appeal meant that his DNA analysis was unlawful and could not be used as evidence. However, after a successful appeal from Maryland, the charge was reinstated.

The extent to which the case is a move toward replacing the rule that warrants must be based on probable cause, normally required with a general standard of reasonableness in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, has been debated. [9] Instead of obtaining a warrant or tying the DNA swabbing to an individualized suspicion, taking DNA soon after an arrest is justified based on reasonableness by weighing "the promotion of legitimate governmental interests" against "the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy" (133 S.Ct. at 1970).

In later cases, the Court has continued to maintain that a warrant is required unless a well-defined categorical exception to the warrant requirement applies or the search is "special needs," "administrative" or "regulatory" one (such as random drug testing of student athletes) whose primary purpose is something other than the production of evidence for the investigation or prosecution of a crime. King thus remains one of only a handful of cases that stands outside this framework.

For the state of Maryland to be able to rightfully obtain and use the buccal sample from the defendant, King must first be arrested for a violent or serious crime. Then, an indictment for a court order would be placed to get a second DNA sample to use for the rape case. If he was not convicted, his DNA would have been destroyed. [10]

A DNA sample offers more insight than a simple fingerprint, aiding the police and protecting the arrestee from being wrongly convicted. Additionally, the sample serves the purpose of determining if the release of the arrestee poses a risk to the community, the victim, or the arrestee. At the conclusion of this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maryland in that there is no real difference between "the practice of how DNA samples are used, and fingerprints, other than the unparalleled accuracy DNA provides." The overall ruling is that it not a violation of the Fourth Amendment in that these samples are part of the protocol when a person is arrested for a serious or violent crime, and the DNA get placed in the system and not be removed except on request.

The future implication of the ruling set the future precedent of allowing policing bodies to obtain buccal DNA samples from arrested criminals. It can then be used to match convicts with other dangerous crimes, giving solace to families and protecting society.

Briefs

In the eyes of the defendant, Alonzo Jay King Jr., there was no evidence to link him to any pre-existing crimes. By taking a buccal sample without informed consent is against the law in that it is an unwarranted analysis of his DNA sample, which is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. DNA testing is not analogous to fingerprinting but an invasion of privacy that citizens have the "right to secure their persons, houses, papers, and effects." There cannot be exceptions for searches of parolees or a special needs exception, which does not require a warrant, because those arrested maintain reasonable expectations of privacy until conviction. Taking into account the balance of securities, the privacy interests outweigh the government's interests. The Maryland police officers did not follow due process and violated the right to privacy as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

As for the plaintiff, the Maryland DNA Collection Act serves as a well-established, legitimate booking procedure for all individuals indicted on charges of violence or burglary. [11] The act and the Maryland state CODIS database were established to keep communities safe by improving the criminal justice system and police investigation practices. [12] A buccal swab is a painless, non-invasive medical procedure and all genetic information is determined from the CODIS regions of the genetic sample, which are commonly used in DNA identification procedures. It is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because no other genetic information other than the CODIS regions are collected. Individuals give consent for their genetic data to be entered into the state of Maryland's CODIS database and may request their data to be destroyed upon exoneration or dropped charges. [11] The defendant did not request for his DNA to be removed from the system until his DNA matched with that of another crime that had been committed 10 years prior to the alleged assault. [11]

Criticism and support

There are many critics of this case in response to the decision. The dissenting view claims that the potential benefits of finding actual perpetrators of cold cases and the possibility of freeing those wrongly convicted do not outweigh the critical privacy concerns. [13] On the other hand, those in favor of the ruling see this case as an important weapon in fighting future crimes. [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DNA profiling</span> Technique used to identify individuals via DNA characteristics

DNA profiling is the process of determining an individual's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) characteristics. DNA analysis intended to identify a species, rather than an individual, is called DNA barcoding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

In United States constitutional law, expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems. Overall, expectations of privacy can be subjective or objective.

Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule, is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.

A DNA database or DNA databank is a database of DNA profiles which can be used in the analysis of genetic diseases, genetic fingerprinting for criminology, or genetic genealogy. DNA databases may be public or private, the largest ones being national DNA databases.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. Therefore, Belton extended the so-called "Chimel rule" of searches incident to a lawful arrest, established in Chimel v. California (1969), to vehicles. The Supreme Court sought to establish bright line rules to govern vehicle search incident to eliminate some confusion in the cases.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debbie Smith Act</span> United States federal criminal legislation

The Debbie Smith Act of 2004 provides United States federal government grants to eligible states and units of local government to conduct DNA analyses of backlogged DNA samples collected from victims of crimes and criminal offenders. The Act expands the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and provides legal assistance to survivors of dating violence. Named after sexual assault survivor Debbie Smith, the Act was passed by the 108th Congress as part of larger legislation, the Justice for All Act of 2004, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 30, 2004. The Act amended the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, the DNA Identification Act of 1994, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Act was reauthorized in 2008, extending the availability of DNA backlog reduction program grants, DNA evidence training and education program grants, and sexual assault forensic exam program grants through fiscal year 2014.

Katie's Law, also known as the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010, is a federal law to provide funding to states to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection processes for felony arrests. The bill is named after Katie Sepich, who was brutally attacked outside of her New Mexico home in August 2003. She was raped, strangled, her body set on fire, and abandoned at an old dump site.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Combined DNA Index System</span> United States national DNA database

The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is the United States national DNA database created and maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. CODIS consists of three levels of information; Local DNA Index Systems (LDIS) where DNA profiles originate, State DNA Index Systems (SDIS) which allows for laboratories within states to share information, and the National DNA Index System (NDIS) which allows states to compare DNA information with one another.

Rapid DNA describes the fully automated process of developing a CODIS Core STR profile or other STR profile from a reference sample buccal swab. The “swab in – profile out” process consists of automated extraction, amplification, separation, detection and allele calling without human intervention. A machine designed to perform such rapid DNA analysis is called a DNA "magic box" by enforcement authorities.

People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. In a sting operation conducted by local police, the defendant, Gregory Diaz, was arrested for the sale of the illicit drug ecstasy and his cellphone, containing incriminating evidence, was seized and searched without a warrant. In trial court proceedings, Diaz motioned to suppress the information obtained from his cellphone, which was denied on the grounds that the search of his cellphone was incident to a lawful arrest. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's decision and was later upheld by the California Supreme Court. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court overruled that position in Riley v. California and held that without a warrant, police may not search the digital information on a cellphone that has been seized incident to arrest.

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.

<i>United States v. Kincade</i> US Court of Appeals Case

United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, is a case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealing with the constitutionality of collecting and retaining DNA from parolees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa</span>

The National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa (NFDD) is a national DNA database used in law enforcement in South Africa. The Criminal Law Amendment Act No. 37 of 2013 provides for the expansion and administration of such a database in South Africa, enabling the South African Police Service (SAPS) to match forensic DNA profiles derived from samples collected at crime scenes with forensic DNA profiles of offenders convicted of, and suspects arrested for, offences listed in a new Schedule 8 of the amended Criminal Procedure Act of 1977.

Genetic privacy involves the concept of personal privacy concerning the storing, repurposing, provision to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to one's genetic information. This concept also encompasses privacy regarding the ability to identify specific individuals by their genetic sequence, and the potential to gain information on specific characteristics about that person via portions of their genetic information, such as their propensity for specific diseases or their immediate or distant ancestry.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it accesses historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

Investigative genetic genealogy, or forensic genetic genealogy, is the emerging practice of utilizing genetic information from direct-to-consumer companies for identifying suspects or victims in criminal cases. As of September 2021, the use of this practice has led to the discovery of over 150 suspects of murder and sexual assault. The investigative power of genetic genealogy revolves around the use of publicly accessible genealogy databases such as GEDMatch and FamilyTreeDNA. On GEDMatch, users are able to upload their genetic data from any direct-to-consumer company in an effort to identify relatives that have tested at companies other than their own.

References

  1. ↑ Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 465-66 (2013)
  2. ↑ Schwinn, Steven D, "Fourth Amendment." Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases (2013): 215. American Bar Association.
  3. ↑ King, 569 U.S. at 443-44 (citations to the Maryland statute omitted).
  4. ↑ King, 569 U.S. at 466 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  5. ↑ David H. Kaye, Maryland v. King: Per Se Unreasonableness, the Golden Rule, and the Future of DNA Databases , 127 Harv. L. Rev. F. 39, 42-43 (2013).
  6. ↑ King, 569 U.S. at 481 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  7. ↑ Adam Liptak (June 3, 2013). "Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests". The New York Times . Retrieved June 3, 2013.
  8. 1 2 Maryland Government, "Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention in Maryland." History of Maryland's DNA Database. State of Maryland Government.
  9. ↑ Compare Erin Murphy, License, Registration, Cheek Swab: DNA Testing and the Divided Court , 127 Harv. L. Rev. 161 (2013), with David H. Kaye, Maryland v. King: Per Se Unreasonableness, the Golden Rule, and the Future of DNA Databases , 127 Harv. L. Rev. F. 39 (2013).
  10. ↑ Little, Roy. "Supreme Court Summaries." American Bar Association: Criminal Justice Section (2013): p.2. American Bar Association. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.
  11. 1 2 3 State of Maryland, Petitioner v. Alonzo Jay King, Jr. 54. Supreme Court of the United States. Jan. 2013. American Government [ABC-CLIO].
  12. ↑ Cornell University Law School. "Fourth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute.
  13. ↑ Sherkow, Jacob. "Maryland versus King: A Mouthful of Contradictions". Stanford Law School. N.p., June 3, 2013.
  14. ↑ Lempert, Richard. "Maryland v. King: An Unfortunate Supreme Court Decision on the Collection of DNA Samples". The Brookings Institution. N.p., June 6, 2013.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.