The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in the midst of grappling with an important criminal case that could have serious implications for those arrested in the state. The 11 judges of the Ninth Circuit gathered together to hear oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of a California law that mandates the collection of DNA samples from anyone who is arrested, regardless of whether they are ultimately charged with a crime.
The Obama Administration and the Attorney General of California argued vehemently that the Court should uphold the law. They claimed that taking a DNA swab from a suspect’s cheek is no more invasive than taking a suspect’s fingerprints and that the DNA check at booking has proved invaluable at solving thousands of cold cases.
On the other side of the dispute is the ACLU, which brought the challenge to the law and says that taking DNA from everyone who is arrested, regardless of the severity of the crime or whether they are ultimately charged amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. The ACLU argued that DNA swabs and fingerprinting are nothing alike given the highly personal and revealing information contained in a person’s DNA. DNA contains a suspect’s genetic blueprint, including information about a person’s mental and physical health. Fingerprints do not.
This is the second time the Ninth Circuit has heard oral argument over this case. Last year the Ninth Circuit appeared to be ready to strike down California’s law until the Supreme Court stepped in and issued a decision on a similar law out of Maryland. After that decision, the Ninth Circuited ordered both sides to prepare for a new oral argument explaining whether California’s law is different from Maryland’s.
The ACLU argued that Maryland’s law was much more narrowly applied than the one in California and, as such, was able to pass constitutional muster. In Maryland, police collect DNA samples only from those who are arrested for serious offenses. The DNA samples are automatically destroyed if someone is not charged with a crime. In California, the samples are taken from everyone and are not automatically destroyed, suspects must petition a court to demand the destruction.
This ruling could potentially impact a Minnesota Felony DWI case where such a DNA sample is required of any individual that is convicted of this offense. Criminal defense attorneys across the country are watching to see how the case turns out. Experts say the justices appear to be split, with several conservatives approving of the law and several liberal siding with the ACLU. How the Ninth Circuit rules could have an impact on similar laws in other states and might also set a direction for how states without such DNA laws draft their legislation moving forward. The hope is that the justices err on the side of privacy and do not force suspects to divulge such incredibly personal information.
Source: “Court to consider California’s DNA collection law,” by Paul Elias, published at UTSanDiego.com.
