Maryland v. King

Maryland v. King

Argued February 26, 2013
Decided June 3, 2013
Full case name Maryland, Petitioner v. Alonzo Jay King, Jr.
Docket nos. 12-207
Citations

569 U.S. ___ (more)

133 S. Ct. 1958
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
Case opinions
Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
Dissent Scalia, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

In Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), the United States Supreme Court decided that "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." 133 S.Ct. at 1980. 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 at this point 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.”

133 S.Ct. at 1967 (citations to the Maryland statute omitted). 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 to use limited data from the DNA to determine whether the individual might be associated with some crime scene or victim.

The decision was close. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, filed a scathing dissenting opinion. These justices maintained that "categorically" and "without exception", "[t]he 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" 133 S.Ct. at 1980. But Supreme Court cases that seem to contradict this claim can be found.[1] The dissent also warned that "because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." 133 S. Ct. at 1999. Justice Scalia took the rare step of reading his dissent from the bench, "signaling deep disagreement" on the Court.[2]

What is important about this case is that it is a move away from requiring a warrant and a move towards a general standard of reasonableness in 4th Amendment jurisprudence. Instead of obtaining a warrant or tying the DNA swabbing to an individualized suspicion, the DNA test is justified based on reasonableness, which is "determined by weighing "the promotion of legitimate governmental interests" against "the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy." It should be noted that in cases where the court considers it an "administrative" or "informational" or "regulatory" search, only reasonableness is required. When it is an "investigative" search, then individualized suspicion, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause will be required. Here the majority considered DNA swabbing to be an informational administrative search that only required reasonableness, while the dissent considered it an intrusive investigative search (as the DNA was used to potentially solve further crimes).

References

  1. ↑ David H. Kaye, Maryland v. King Per Se Unreasonableness, the Golden Rule, and the Future of DNA Databases, 127 Harv. L. Rev. F. 39, 40, 42-43 (2013)
  2. ↑ Adam Liptak (3 June 2013). "Justices Allow Police to Take DNA Samples After Arrests". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 June 2013.

Further reading

External links