Warrantless DNA Collection | Danks Miller & Cory, Jackson MS

One of the areas of criminal law that has always proven interesting involves the standards for warrantless searches. This discussion revisits an important criminal law case, Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013).

In Maryland v. King, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Constitution prevented the routine collection of DNA from someone who is arrested. The challenge to collecting DNA without a warrant was based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects each of us from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and stands as one of the pinnacles of privacy law by restricting government conduct.

The Facts

The facts in Maryland v. King were rather simple. In 2003, a woman was raped. She reported the attack and underwent a rape exam. A sample of the unknown perpetrator's DNA was obtained and entered into a Maryland DNA database.

Six years later, Mr. King was arrested on unrelated assault charges. After his arrest, a routine warrantless DNA sample was taken by means of a cheek swab. Mr. King's DNA sample was run through the Maryland DNA database and matched the sample from the 2003 rape exam. Charges were then brought against Mr. King for the 2003 crime. His lawyers moved to suppress the DNA evidence based on the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. The motion was overruled and Mr. King was convicted.

The Supreme Court's Decision

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court decided that the Maryland DNA collection law did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The close vote demonstrates a clear divide when it comes to strictly enforcing constitutional rights.

In analyzing the case, the Court first found that the collection of DNA was a search, and therefore that the Fourth Amendment analysis applied. The Court then turned to whether the warrantless collection of DNA from anyone who is arrested is an unreasonable search or seizure. The Court found that it was not unreasonable, specifically stating that individualized suspicion was not needed to conduct the DNA search. A lawful arrest by itself is a sufficient basis for such a search.

In reaching its conclusion, the five-justice majority balanced the various governmental interests against the suspect's reasonable expectations of privacy. The Court found that the government had a legitimate interest in the accuracy of the identity of the arrested person, protecting the public from the dangers presented by the arrested person, eliminating flight risk, and exonerating those innocent of crimes actually committed by the arrested person. The Court concluded that these interests outweighed any reasonable expectations of privacy, especially where there was only a minimal intrusion, such as a cheek swab. The Court went on to say that DNA analysis was very similar to fingerprinting and relied on a series of cases that found fingerprinting did not violate the Fourth Amendment.