Mandatory DNA testing and the Fourth Amendment Beverly A. Ginn Legal Advisor Tucson PD.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Terry v. Ohio and NY City Stop and Frisk Policy
Advertisements

1 Chapter 11 Evidence is Admissible if Obtained During an Administrative Function Under the “Special Needs” of Government Evidence is Admissible if Obtained.
Ellie Ingbritsen and Rosie Parmigiani Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County et. al v Earls et. al.
AJ 104 Chapter 1 Introduction.
Our Precedential Court System
Case Law: The Courts Trial courts are the entry to the court system. Trial courts are where attorneys present evidence and make arguments, and a judge.
Miranda Rights 5th Amendment
Fourth Amendment: Searches at School Note: Some photos and text in the PowerPoint are adapted from a lesson plan developed by Lindsey Kakert. The lesson.
Criminal Justice Process: the investigation – Chp 12 Arrest – Suspect taken into custody 4 th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their.
Law enforcement officers conduct searches every day in an effort to find evidence that can be seized and used in court to prosecute people who have violated.
Supreme Court Cases. Solem V. Helm Issue: Was Helm’s constitutional right of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment violated?
History, Structure and Function of the American Legal System
From the Courtroom to the Classroom: Learning About Law © 2003 Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved.
Chapter 13 Parole Conditions and Revocation. Introduction Parole conditions determine the amount of freedom versus restriction a parolee has Accomplishment.
Tina Kraigher and Milena Podjed-Fabjančič 18 April 2010 Processing of Telephone Traffic Data of Employees ( a Case Study )
FEDERAL COURTS AND KANSAS STATE COURTS By: Alisha Talsma All information obtained from Clack, G. (Ed.).(2004).Outline of the American Legal System(5 th.
Ferguson v. Charleston Aaron Leavitt Law, Values, and Public Policy Spring Semester 2002.
Welcome to our Quiz Show. So you want to be as smart as a State Court Judge?
Judicial Branch Article 3 of the Constitution Article 3 of the Constitution Unit 5 Vocabulary.
© 2011 South-Western | Cengage Learning GOALS LESSON 1.1 LAW, JUSTICE, AND ETHICS Recognize the difference between law and justice Apply ethics to personal.
Featured Programs Awards Publications Products Catalog LRE Network Contact Print This | Page Feedback | ShareThisPage Feedback Criminal Law Rules on Search.
LAW for Business and Personal Use © 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible.
The Court System. The US Federal Court System The Current Supreme Court The court has final authority on cases involving the constitution, acts of Congress,
The Federal Court System …and Justice For All. The Adversarial System Courts settle civil disputes between private parties, a private party and the government,
Legal Issues Unit 1 Review. Jurisprudence The study of law and legal philosophy.
Search and seizure. Purposes of a search Fruits of the crime (e.g., stolen property) Instrumentalities of the crime (e.g., a gun, burglary tools) Circumstantial.
New Jersey v. T.L.O By Luke Wills and Caroline Weschler.
Grady L. Hunt Locklear, Jacobs, Hunt & Brooks (910) The information contained in this presentation is intended for general.
The Fourth Amendment Protects the people’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Law & Justice Chapter 12 Criminal Investigations.
The Bill of Rights The First Fundamental Changes of the Constitution.
“ Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Criminal Evidence Chapter Four: Doctrine of Justification This multimedia product and its contents are protected under.
Homework: Read/OL 14.3 for Monday FrontPage: Have 3 worksheets on your desk.
The 4 th amendment. The 4 th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported.
Investigative Constitutional Law Charles L. Feer, JD, MPA Bakersfield College Department of Criminal Justice Investigative Constitutional Law.
Due Process Amendments What is due process? Due process, for the people of the United States, refers to how laws are enforced why laws are.
Legal Studies * Mr. Marinello ARRESTS AND WARRANTS.
Chapter 12: Criminal Justice Process ~ The Investigation Objective: Student should be able to correlate how the constitution relates to an investigation.
The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stands at the top of the American legal system. Article III of the Constitution created the Supreme Court as one.
Fourth Amendment And Probable Cause. By the end of this presentation you should be able to understand; ◦Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ◦How.
Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation The criminal justice process includes everything that happens to a person from the moment of arrest, through.
Judicial Branch Basics and “Due Process”. Basic Structure of the Judicial Branch Supreme Court (original and appellate jurisdiction) 13 Circuit Courts.
Judicial Review The Supreme Court’s power to overturn any law that it decides is in conflict with the Constitution.
Chapter 6 Due Process and Other Protected Rights Section 1 The Rights of Criminal Defendants.
Facts of the Case  Two students were found smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom.  One of the students (TLO) denied smoking, so her bag was searched.
The U.S. Legal System Module 1 NURS Summer II
1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 3 Arrests Criminal Justice Procedure 8 th Edition.
Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation
COURTROOM WORKGROUP I: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS
Lesson 32: How Do the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments Protect Rights Within the Judicial System?
Criminal Investigation and the Law
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643.
Welcome to our Quiz Show
The Courts and the Constitution
Chapter 8 Police and Constitutional Law
Judicial Branch Judicial Branch clip.
Chapter 16 Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial
The Fourth Amendment Protects the people’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Court System.
The Judicial Branch.
Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, 2d.
Bell Work (Think of your response and be prepared to share)
Florida v. Jardines.
Judicial Branch.
Sources of Law Legislature – makes law Executive – enforces law
Legal System.
Search & Seizure The act of taking possession of this property.
Terry v. Ohio and NY City Stop and Frisk Policy
Chapter 7 test review game
Courtroom to Classroom:
Presentation transcript:

Mandatory DNA testing and the Fourth Amendment Beverly A. Ginn Legal Advisor Tucson PD

Mandatory testing statutes Currently, the federal government and each state mandate that certain convicted persons provide samples of their DNA to the government. The classes of persons included vary, but no individualized suspicion or other similar information is necessary.

Judicial Review Until very recently, every court that had reviewed the constitutionality of mandatory DNA statutes had found them to be constitutional under the 4th Amendment.

State DNA statutes have been upheld by decisions in numerous reported cases, including decisions by five federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Courts have upheld state mandated DNA testing statutes under one of two separate legal rationales: –1. Such a search is “reasonable” under the 4th Amendment when the competing interests are “balanced.” –2. Such a search fits within the “special needs” exception to the 4th Amendment.

Reasonableness/Balancing The majority of the decisions are based on a finding that the search is reasonable, balancing the competing interests. Rationale: Minimal intrusion, Lesser expectation of privacy, Overwhelming public interest in accurate and effective crime prevention, control and prosecution.

“Special Needs” exception A number of the cases rely instead on “special needs.” Special needs exception: a search may be reasonable even when predicated on less than probable cause or individualized suspicion where special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, render those requirements impractical Examples: border searches, DUI checkpoints, employee/student drug testing.

“Special Needs” exception Rationale: The program is one whose purpose is outside the “normal need for law enforcement.” Warrant and probable cause requirements are impractical. Balancing competing interests weighs in favor of the government program and the search involved is reasonable.

But…. The first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to consider* the constitutionality of the federal mandatory DNA testing statute has just been decided. The Court ruled the statute was unconstitutional. U.S. v. Kincade, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS (9th Cir. 2003) (decided October 2)

Who cares about the 9th? We all do, since an interruption in the flow of information to CODIS affects all of law enforcement, and The rationale used by the 9th Cir. to strike down the DNA Act may influence decisions by other courts.

Kincade “No circuit court has heretofore given full consideration to the question of the constitutionality of the DNA Act.” Panel finds other decisions regarding DNA statutes implicitly overruled by the U.S.Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Edmond and Ferguson.

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond Drug interdiction roadblocks. Programs dependent upon suspicionless searches cannot be justified solely or primarily by reference to the needs of law enforcement. The “special needs” exception does not apply to a government program when the primary purpose is to detect evidence of “ordinary criminal wrongdoing.”

Ferguson v. City of Charleston Enforcement of drug laws using medical tests done on pregnant women “The immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes, and, accordingly, tests conducted for purposes of the program violated the 4th Amendment….[I]n none of our previous special needs cases have we upheld the collection of evidence for criminal law enforcement purposes.”

So…………... A fair reading of Edmond and Ferguson: 1. Individualized suspicion is required for any search to be reasonable, unless… 2. The “special needs” exception applies.

Kincade Finds no justification for an analysis that allows “balancing” of law enforcement needs to outweigh the 4th Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion for compulsory blood extraction. Finds that the DNA Act has as its primary purpose normal law enforcement and is therefore not a “special needs.”

U.S. v. Miles (E.D.Ca 2002) Reaches the same conclusion. Reads the Supreme Court’s cases as holding that programmatic suspicionless searches cannot be justified by reference to general law enforcement needs, or by programs in which the immediate objective is to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes. Struck down DNA Act as applied to the facts in this case.

And for the opposite view...

Nicholas v. Goord (S.D. NY 2003) Decided before Kincade. Agrees that Edmond and Ferguson hold that the balancing/reasonableness inquiry used by many courts is not an appropriate analysis. Agrees that the “special needs” exception to the 4th Amendment applies only to programs that have as their primary purpose a need “beyond the normal need for law enforcement.”

Nicholas v. Goord (S.D. NY 2003) Upholds DNA Act, finding the primary purpose to be something other than the collection of evidence for criminal prosecution. –DNA samples are not evidence of crime –Not collected for prosecution of a specific crime –Does not prove that donor committed a crime –Program intended to create a more accurate criminal justice system, solve future crimes.

U.S. v. Reynard (S.D.Ca 2002) District Court performs the same analysis as that of the Nicholas case and reaches the same conclusion - the special needs exception applies. Court finds the following purposes of the statute: –Completing the CODIS database –Assisting state and local law enforcement functions –Increasing the accuracy of the criminal justice system –Preventing violent felons from repeating their crimes in the future

Future of DNA testing statutes Will other courts, especially state courts, begin to revisit their prior holdings that these statutes are constitutional? It is expected that a petition for rehearing will be filed in Kincade.