[Vision2020] DNA and the Constitution

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

------------------------------
February 24, 2013
DNA and the Constitution

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear
argument<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/maryland-v-king/>about
whether it is constitutional for a state to collect DNA from people
charged with violent crimes but not yet convicted. Last April, the Maryland
Court of Appeals
ruled<http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/desktop/public/document/King_v_State_No_68_September_Term_2011_2012_BL_101599_Md_Apr_24_2>that
a state law authorizing such collection violated the Fourth
Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Maryland law enforcement officials were allowed to continue collecting DNA
samples, however, through an
order<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Md-v.-King-CJ-opinion-7-30-12.pdf>last
July by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. He said there was a “fair
prospect” that the Supreme Court would reverse the Maryland decision, which
conflicts with rulings of the Virginia Supreme Court and of the United
States Courts of Appeals for the Third and the Ninth Circuits on similar
statutes in other states. But the justices should uphold the Maryland
court’s ruling, thus calling into question those other rulings. The
Maryland law clearly contravenes the Fourth Amendment.

The case involves the collection of DNA from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after his
arrest on assault charges in 2009. His DNA profile matched evidence from a
rape in 2003, and he was convicted of that rape.

The state did not, however, obtain a warrant to collect his DNA, nor did it
establish that it had probable cause to think that his DNA would link him
either to the assault or the rape. It did not even meet the lowest
threshold for some searches, by establishing that it had a reasonable basis
for taking his DNA, or showing that the DNA evidence would disappear unless
it was collected.

Maryland argues<http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-207_pet.authcheckdam.pdf>that
collecting and analyzing DNA is like fingerprinting. But the purpose
of fingerprinting is to identify someone who has been arrested. Maryland
was using DNA for investigative purposes, not identification, and doing so
without legal justification.

Maryland also argues that the incursion on Mr. King’s privacy was minor
compared with the major benefit in crime-solving. But the number of crimes
solved with DNA<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/opinion/dna-and-the-fourth-amendment.html>from
people arrested has been low. The substantial harm to innocent people
that could result from the misuse of DNA greatly outweighs the benefits.
And the safeguard against such harm is the Fourth Amendment, whose
fundamental protections the Maryland court upheld. The Supreme Court should
do likewise.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130225/c39df0c7/attachment.html>