Supreme Court Issues Important Decision Regarding DNA Collection

A divided Supreme Court issued an important opinion today, Maryland v. King, saying that police are allowed to routinely take DNA from those suspects they arrest without first securing a warrant. The important criminal law decision equated a DNA cheek swab with the commonly accepted practice of fingerprinting.

The case involved a woman who was raped and robbed but police never were able to identify a suspect. Years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with second-degree assault. Police took advantage of the Maryland law which allowed warrantless DNA tests following some arrests, and took a swab of King’s cheek. After putting the DNA into a database, the police got a hit for the earlier rape and King was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

Justice Kennedy, who wrote for the five-justice majority, said that taking a DNA swab is like fingerprinting and photographing which is already part of a legitimate police booking procedure and is acceptable under the Fourth Amendment.

The case was seen as important not only because of the increasing importance of DNA evidence, but also because of how prevalent the practice already is among the states. As of today, at least 28 states and the federal case engage in warrantless DNA collection. A Maryland court that heard the case said the practice was illegal and said that the state first needed approval from a judge before taking a suspect’s DNA. The Maryland court said that a reasonable expectation of privacy prevented such warrantless searches.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Maryland court and reinstated King’s rape conviction. Kennedy wrote that in the way it was used in this case, DNA for the purpose of identification is no different than matching someone’s face to a wanted poster or matching tattoos to known gang symbols. According to the justice, the procedure of taking a swab from a cheek is not substantially different than taking a fingerprint from a suspect and matching it to those recovered from a crime scene.

The dissent was harshly critical and led by outspoken Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia warned the public that because of today’s decision anyone’s DNA could be taken and entered into a national database if they are ever arrested for any reason. Scalia’s trouble with the case was not about the taking of the DNA itself, which is seen as a common step in many criminal investigations. Instead, the issue is one of timing. Taking the DNA before a conviction and without judicial approval is what Scalia had a problem with given that suspects are forced to divulge incredibly valuable and personal information to law enforcement without any judicial oversight.  

Read the full opinion here.

Read: “Supreme Court Upholds Warrantless Collection Of DNA,” by Mark Memmott, published at NPR.org.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Supreme Court Justices Grapple With Critical DNA Testing Case

Supreme Court To Hear DNA Collection Challenge

Supreme Court Justices Grapple With Critical DNA Testing Case

Adam Liptak at the New York Times recently discussed a crucial case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court and how the impact of the decision could be felt across police stations and in court rooms across the country for years to come. The justices appeared to be aware of just how important the case was, with Justice Alito saying that he though it was possibly “the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades.”

The case deals with whether police are allowed to take DNA samples from people who have been arrested. The case began after a suspect in Maryland, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., was arrested on assault charges back in 2009. A sample of King’s DNA was taken by swabbing his cheek at the time of his arrest, but prior to any conviction, and it later matched evidence from a rape that took place several years prior. King was eventually convicted for the rape and appealed the case to the Maryland Court of Appeals which agreed that taking DNA from those arrested but not yet convicted violates the Fourth Amendment.

While it may be true the DNA collection process is valuable to police departments and has helped nabbed criminals, that does not mean it should be permitted, a point aptly made by Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia, in responding to a claim that the DNA evidence helped obtain 42 convictions in Maryland, said it was great news and he thought if the police conducted a bunch of other unreasonable searches and seizures they might get even more. He made clear that he thought the effectiveness of the program proved nothing. In an odd alliance, Justice Ginsburg voiced her agreement that the DNA testing practice might be problematic under the Fourth Amendment which requires a warrant before police can conduct a search.

The justices never even discussed the issue of collecting DNA from suspects who had already been convicted of crimes, instead the issue was solely over what the Fourth Amendment might say regarding those suspects who have only been arrested. Justice Roberts said that while Maryland’s law limits the DNA samples to those arrested for serious crimes, there was nothing preventing the law from siding down a slippery slope, perhaps authorizing such DNA searches for everyone pulled over for speeding. Playing a good devil’s advocate, Roberts also said he wondered about the expectation of privacy in DNA when it can be so easily obtained. For instance, Roberts said that simply taking a sip of water leaves behind a wealth of private information.

Alito said that the technology at issue is potentially hugely important and could be used to solve a multitude of murders, rapes and other heinous crimes. He appeared to see the value of it, asking, “Why isn’t this the fingerprinting of the 21^st century?” This issue seemed to be the focus of oral arguments, with King’s attorneys saying that DNA and fingerprints differ in that fingerprints are used almost solely to identify people while DNA is used to solve cold cases. We’ll have to wait a while to hear what the justices think.

Read: “Justices Wrestle Over Allowing DNA Sampling at Time of Arrest,” by Adam Liptak, published at NYTimes.com.

Earlier:

Supreme Court To Hear DNA Collection Challenge

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case of Woman Who Poisoned Her Best Friend

Supreme Court To Hear DNA Collection Challenge

Later this month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving a challenge by privacy rights advocates to the practice of taking DNA from people who have been arrested, but not yet convicted of a crime. The case is an important one, as many legal experts believe the decision will either end the practice or make it the new national norm.

In 2003, Virginia became the first state to pass such a law, requiring that anyone arrested for a serious crime have a DNA sample taken by a mouth swab. The law was passed in an attempt for law enforcement officials to quickly identify possible violent criminals and obtain DNA to help tie them to other crimes.

Since Virginia made the first move a decade ago, 27 other states and the federal government now collect DNA samples from some or all those who are arrested but not yet convicted of serious crimes. Beyond taking fingerprints, most jail bookings now involve taking an oral DNA swab. The practice is set to become even more widespread given that President Obama signed the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act just last month. The new law will help pay the initial costs associated with starting a DNA collection program for other states.

Some states don’t stop at swabbing those arrested for violent crimes. California, for instance, takes DNA samples from those arrested for nonviolent matters, including drug crimes, credit card fraud and burglary. They say taking DNA samples from a wider pool of arrestees has led to the capture and conviction of rapists and murderers.

The issue before the Supreme Court is not how effective the matter is from a law enforcement perspective, but whether such DNA collection practices are constitutional given that the person has not yet been convicted of having committed any crime. It is more of a question in cases where DNA evidence has nothing to do with the crime, such as in drug cases or property crimes.

The case before the Supreme Court is Maryland v. King. The issue presented is whether requiring DNA samples from someone not yet convicted amounts to an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Back in 2009, Alonzo King was arrested for waiving a shotgun in public. This was a felony in Maryland and resulted in a DNA test. King later pled guilty to a reduced charge, something that would not have required a DNA sample be taken. However, it was too late, as the DNA sample returned a match for a case several years before that identified him as the man who broke into a house a raped a woman. King was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life behind bars.

The Maryland Supreme Court later threw out his conviction and said that police should not be allowed to take a DNA sample without a search warrant and a reasonable belief that the suspect had committed another crime justifying such a DNA sample. The Court reasoned that DNA samples contain a massive amount of incredibly personal information, vastly more than is contained in a fingerprint, and thus deserve protection. Here is the Maryland full opinion.

Several important cases are currently on hold as judges across the country wait to hear from the Supreme Court. A significant DNA case is pending before the California Supreme Court as well as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which have said they will wait to hear how the Supreme Court decides the matter before issuing their opinions.

Read: “Supreme Court to hear fight over taking DNA from arrested people,” by David Savage, published at LATimes.com.

Supreme Court May Hear Case Regarding DNA Database

The Supreme Court will likely hear a Maryland case this term regarding a law that allows law enforcement to take DNA samples of anyone arrested for a crime--before the individual has been convicted of a crime.
Many people may know or expect that individuals convicted of crimes are required to submit to DNA collection in Tennesee. Something most people are unaware of is that there is a Tennessee law that requires law enforcement to take a DNA sample once someone has been arrested for all violent felonies.

The collection law states: (1) When a person is arrested for the commission of a violent felony, the person shall have a biological specimen taken, for the purpose of DNA analysis to determine identification characteristics specific to the person as defined in subsection (a). After a determination by a magistrate or a grand jury that probable cause exists for the arrest, but prior to the person's release from custody, the arresting authority shall take the sample using a buccal swab collection kit for DNA testing. The biological specimen shall be collected by the arresting authority in accordance with the uniform procedures established by the Tennessee bureau of investigation, pursuant to § 38-6-113, and shall be forwarded by the arresting authority to the bureau, which shall maintain the sample as provided in § 38-6-113. The court or magistrate shall make the provision of a specimen a condition of the person's release on bond or recognizance if bond or recognizance is granted.

Tennessee law requires the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to establish a DNA database. The database was established nationally by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to enable crime laboratories to exchange DNA profiles for unknown subjects and other offenders.

The law was championed as a tool to help law enforcement find and capture those who commit serious offenses in the state, but opponents of the law argue that it allows law enforcement to trample on the 4th Amendment rights of those who have been arrested but not yet convicted of anything. These opponents of the law argue that DNA samples represent an unreasonable search and seizure of private information when the person has been accused and not convicted of a serious offense.

DNA is a powerful tool that law enforcement can use to tie a person to a crime or crime scene when other evidence is lacking. Adding DNA to the state and national database is expected to help close multiple cases that have gone cold, often because the existing physical evidence, without DNA, was not enough to lead investigators to the perpetrator.

Prior to the implementation of the T.C.A. Section 40-35-321, police were required to obtain a warrant for DNA evidence before they were legally allowed to collect it. For those who are later acquitted or have their charges dismissed, the DNA information is supposed to be removed from the statewide database.

Read: “California and the Fourth Amendment,” published at NYTimes.com.
See Our Related Blog Posts:
DNA Evidence and the Confrontation Clause
Alarming Flaws in Forensic Analysis Revealed

Alarming Flaws in Forensic Analysis Revealed

by Janie Parks

The Washington Post reported earlier this week about potential flaws in forensic analysis by the FBI. In the early 1990's the Justice Department began a review of cases where the defendants were convicted in part because of forensic analysis in FBI crime labs. The review focused on cases involving one FBI agent in particular whose methods had been questioned in recent cases. According to the Post, the FBI was aware of its potential flaws in forensic evidence protocol across the agency, but decided to narrow its investigation to just those cases involving one agent. Over a span of 9 years, the investigation revealed hundreds of cases where the forensic evidence was either analyzed in a sloppy manner or was analyzed in the wrong manner by the FBI. The Post formed a task force to conduct its own investigation after obtaining thousands of files pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. According to its findings, the FBI-led investigation found over 250 convictions in which the scientific review had been completed. What is most troubling about the task force investigation is that it revealed fewer than half of the defendants in the over 250 questionable convictions had been notified that their cases had been reviewed. According to the FBI, they were only obligated to inform the prosecutors of each case. Only about half the prosecutors disclosed the review to the defendants.

The Investigation conducted by the FBI has led to some exonerations of defendants, many of whom were serving life sentences. In fact, many have already served over 20 years. A truly unfortunate case involved Benjamin Boyle, a Texas man on death row. Boyle was executed in 1997, more than a year after the FBI began its review of the forensic evidence in his case. According to the Prosecution's memo, Boyle would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the forensic evidence presented against him. That same forensic evidence may have been poorly handled and could have potentially exonerated him.

What is particularly disturbing about this is the amount of cases they haven't reviewed. How many convicts were convicted due to forensic analysis? How was that forensic evidence analyzed? Two cases in the D. C. Superior Court at the moment were not reviewed by the FBI. However, in both cases, both defendants are seeking exonerations based on invalid hair and fiber analysis.

In the case of Santae Tribble, Tribble was convicted of murdering a taxicab driver in July 1978. Tribble became a suspect and was eventually arrested and charged with the murder. During the trial, an FBI forensic analyst testified that they recovered a stocking a block away from the crime scene with 13 hairs on it. According to the analyst, the hairs were matched to Tribble. After hearing that evidence, and despite the fact that Tribble had a solid alibi, the jury convicted Tribble of murder. He was sentenced to life, and is now on parole. In January, Tribble's attorney was able to have that evidence re-examined. According to the reexamination, none of the 13 hairs on the stocking matched Tribble's hair or shared his genetic profile. However, according to the analyst at trial, the hairs from the stocking matched Tribble's hair "in all microscopic characteristics." Upon re-examination, one of the hairs was found to have characteristics specific to the Caucasian race. Tribble is African American. Further, one of the 13 hairs was found to be of inhuman origin: it belonged to a dog. Needless to say, tribble filed a motion for exoneration and it is currently pending.

Kirk Odom was convicted of rape of a young woman in 1981. The victim identified Odom in a lineup, but later admitted at trial that it was very dark outside. The State presented evidence at trial of a hair found on the victim's nightgown. According to the FBI analyst, the hair found on the nightgown was "microscopically like" Odom's hair. He was convicted and is now out on parole. Again, in January, further tests on the evidence revealed that the DNA sample taken from the hair did not match Odom's DNA. He filed a motion for exoneration on March 14.

It bears repeating that each of these cases were not part of the FBI investigation.

So where do we go from here? I'd imagine it won't be too long before an agency-wide investigation of the FBI forensic analysts is commenced. If that investigation occurs, it will have some potentially shocking and disappointing results. We'll keep you updated.

DNA Evidence and the Confrontation Clause

By the_tjb

Williams v. Illinois, was recently argued before the Supreme Court. This case concerns the issue of when a DNA analyst testifies at trial that he or she has compared analyses of two DNA samples and found a match-- does the prosecution also have to produce the experts who produced the analyses, or only the expert who reviewed them both and made the match? The oral arguments to Williams v. Illinois, can be heard through this link.

According to an article in The Atlantic, interest in this case is from a recent appeal by an Illinois rape convict and is part of a recent series of cases testing the reach of a defendant’s right to be “confronted by the witnesses against him.” A narrow majority of the Supreme Court has expanded that Sixth Amendment right in cases involving a range of witness testimony, including the introduction of forensic reports.

The facts of the case are as follows: Police took a sample of Sandy Williams’s blood after he was arrested on an unrelated charge. A lab technician at the official state lab then sequenced his DNA. A state expert in turn compared the chart produced by that sequencing with another chart, drawn from a sample taken in a “rape kit” from the victim. That chart came from a sequencing conducted in an out-of-state lab. The state-lab tech testified that proper procedures were followed. The expert testified that the two charts were a close match. The out-of-state lab was accredited, but beyond that little was introduced regarding the procedures that took place on their end. Williams’s attorneys moved to strike the evidence and thus far the Illinois state court has refused.

The case has potentially important implications for both sides of the criminal law practice. Requiring testimony from multiple experts who will essentially be testifying to the same thing, makes criminal prosecution more costly. However, allowing only one expert to testify raises the chance that flawed DNA may sway the jury.

The new dispute, closely watched by prosecutors and defense lawyers nationwide, specifically addresses situations in which a report is not introduced at trial but is used as the basis for testimony by another expert witness. A ruling would refine the rules for when analysts must be available for trial.

Forty-two other states have entered the case on the side of Illinois, arguing that scientific witnesses should be able to offer independent analyses of forensic evidence without the need to bring in the people who generated the underlying data. Defense groups such as the California Public Defenders Association counter that if those who prepared the underlying reports are not called, a defendant will not be able to probe their qualifications or record.

The issue is critical in criminal prosecutions because of the important role DNA evidence has developed since it was first introduced as evidence in the 1990's. It’s seen by many juries as rock-solid proof that a crime was or was not committed, even if that conclusion is misleading in the context of the entire case. Justice Alito wrote as much in an earlier case, saying “DNA testing... even when performed in perfect accordance with protocols - often fails to provide ‘absolute proof’ of anything.”

A ruling in the case of Williams v. Illinois is likely by the end of June when the Court recesses for the summer.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Supreme Court Must Answer “The Broccoli Question”

Health Care Battle Brings Calls for Recusal

Anyone Arrested For A Felony Must Give DNA Sample, Propsed TN Bill

• SENATE BILL 257

This Bill from the Tennessee Senate requires all persons arrested on or after January 1, 2012, for the commission of any felony to have a biological specimen taken for the purpose of DNA analysis. Requires the bureau to destroy the sample and all records of the sample if the charge for which the sample was taken is dismissed or the defendant is acquitted at trial. (S: Ramsey R.; H: Lundberg)


In short, all felony arrests to offer biological specimen for DNA analysis and that is a condition of bond and release: "After the person is arrested, but prior to the person's release from custody on bail or otherwise, the arresting authority shall take the sample using a buccal swab collection kit for DNA testing." How will that impact the time it takes to make bond?