More

HuffPost Social Reading

California Inmates Can Be Forced To Submit DNA, Court Rules

California Inmates Dna

PAUL ELIAS   02/23/12 03:37 PM ET  AP

SAN FRANCISCO — A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement's interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.

The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.

The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.

The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state's DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.

The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 "hits" connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.

Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn't any more intrusive than fingerprinting.

"Law enforcement officers analyze only enough DNA information to identify the individual, making DNA collection substantially similar to fingerprinting, which law enforcement officials have used for decades to identify arrestees, without serious constitutional objection," wrote Smith, who also said investigators are prohibited by law from misusing the database.

Judge William Fletcher dissented, writing that fingerprinting a suspect is done exclusively for identification purposes. The DNA samples, he wrote, "are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion."

Fletcher noted that one-third of the 300,000 people arrested in the state for felonies each year are never charged with felonies. He said the state's offer to remove those samples from the database for those who apply is onerous.

"Expungement is a lengthy, uncertain and expensive process, Fletcher said. "Arrestees seeking expungement must pay their own expenses and attorney's fees."

Fletcher said he believed the privacy rights of arrestees never charged with felonies should trump law enforcement's need to collect to the DNA.

The same issue is also making its way through the state court system. A Court of Appeal decision striking down the collection as unconstitutional was put on hold when the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO — A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies. The 9th U.S. Circuit ...
SAN FRANCISCO — A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies. The 9th U.S. Circuit ...
Filed by Carly Schwartz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Milash
It says I should edit my micro-bio, so I did.
11:34 AM on 02/27/2012
Who said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was liberal?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Foodgrade
Learn to grow banannas
06:14 PM on 02/26/2012
I like the posts supporting more invasion of the privacy of people who are not convicted of anything. The new definition of privacy in the U.S. is a gang shower. Well, they've been boiling this frog for a long time, it's almost done.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
01:58 AM on 02/27/2012
There is no difference between this and fingerprinting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Foodgrade
Learn to grow banannas
07:28 PM on 02/27/2012
Which is also wrong. Why do cops object to taking drug tests? Ou, they're above it all, right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zombywulf
Pirate Captain Church of Saint Jerry
05:53 PM on 02/26/2012
Arrestees who are never charged with a felony "can apply" to have their samples expunged from the database, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. As with all so called "tools" it will be misused. And the fact that the database isn't secure should scare everyone.
REDSTATEREFUGEE
Texan by birth ; Californian by choice
12:42 PM on 02/25/2012
I agree with the ruling. Besides assisting law enforcement in clearing active and cold cases, the test might just prove that some prisoners are not guilty of crimes charged.
joyz41
Standing for Fairness for All
11:58 AM on 02/25/2012
I think the DNA sample is non-intrusive and the public good of convicting the right people justifies this policy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gnorrfa
emitte lucem et veritatem
10:19 AM on 02/25/2012
Everyone's DNA should be on file. Start at birth. Civil Liberties must never be curtailed but if you step out of line why must the state spend millions in time and money playing hide and seek?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DanielSC
03:38 PM on 02/26/2012
Interesting position. I would like you to show me one example where massive databases/files on citizens was not abused by the government (or someone in the government). Why should we allow that very few people in society dictate how much privacy and personal identity the vast majority of law abiding citizens must have? Expense tends to limits abuse. I agree with this courts position that once you are convicted, you forfeit that right. But to go further and saying the state has the right to manage, collect, and potentially disseminate one of the most intimate details of a human (the very genetic makeup) is I think a gross overreach on part of the state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gnorrfa
emitte lucem et veritatem
03:46 PM on 02/26/2012
I used to be strongly against it but I read an account sometime ago about a serial murderer in the U.K. and they caught him because everyone in the town gave their DNA. and the culprit was caught. A lot of arguments one side and the other and I was captured by the logic. Try "DNA U.K. and take it from there. Very simplified I know, but this Huffington Post and I don't want to take up too much space. Good luck.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gnorrfa
emitte lucem et veritatem
04:10 PM on 02/26/2012
I tried to reply, but my answer disappeared. Sorry about that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mailman
08:00 AM on 02/25/2012
They do finger prints why not DNA? It a tool for identification.
12:58 AM on 02/25/2012
This is another example of how we are losing our freedom and we have forgotten how to live as a free people. Taking DNA from someone who has not been convicted of a crime is one of the worst violations of our constitutional rights I can think of. If someone has been convicted then they lose all of their rights and then no problem. The Supreme Court needs to weigh in on this ASAP.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
12:36 PM on 02/25/2012
They take photos and fingerprints, so what is the difference?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zombywulf
Pirate Captain Church of Saint Jerry
05:55 PM on 02/26/2012
as someone who knows how to play with the data in databases, what's to stop a bad cop from changing the name on a sample and sending you to jail.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Blomberg
Grammar errors notwithstanding!
09:14 PM on 02/24/2012
Once you are in prison, you have no privacy. Swab away, ye mateys!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zombywulf
Pirate Captain Church of Saint Jerry
05:57 PM on 02/26/2012
hope you've never given blood or had a sample taken, as it can be cloned and left at a crime scene and their you go,
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Blomberg
Grammar errors notwithstanding!
08:42 PM on 02/26/2012
I work for the govt... I have shared.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
02:02 AM on 02/27/2012
There are a lot cheaper ways to frame someone than that.