Please Scroll Down for a complete listing of information

DNA Arrestee Database Cases

 
 

Nearly a third of the states, Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia, now have laws authorizing arrestee DNA sampling and any person arrested for a federal crime is subject to DNA sampling under the Violence Against Women law of 2006.

Challenges to DNA Arrestee Database statutes based on the Fourth Amendment have arisen. Cases addressing those issues are listed below:

  1. Anderson v. Com, Virginia Supreme Court, No. 062051, 9/14/07, the collection of DNA from an arrestee did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the statute authorizing this collection is constitutional. Anderson.PDF
  2. In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.L., Minnesota Court of Appeals, A06-874, File No. J4-05-52203, 10/10/06, the Minnesota DNA arrestee statute violates the Fourth Amendment. C.T.L..PDF
  3. United States v. Pool, 09-015-EJG-GGH, Eastern District of California, May 27, 2009, the court upheld the constitutionality of DNA sample collection from all those arrested upon probable cause for the commission of a federal felony finding that after a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause has been made for felony criminal charges against a defendant, no Fourth Amendment or other Constitutional violation is caused by a requirement that the defendant undergo a mouth swab or blood test for the purposes of DNA analysis to be used for criminal law enforcement identification purposes. Pool.PDF
  4. United States v. Mitchell, 2:09cr105, US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 11/6/09, the federal arrestee statute violates the Fourth Amendment. Mitchell.PDF
  5. Haskell v. Brown, US District Court for the Northern District of California, C 09-04779CRB, 12/23/09, the court denied a motion to enjoin the enforcement of the California arrestee statute finding that the plaintiff was not likely to succeed in establishing that the statue violated the Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Haskell.pdf

For more information on arrestee DNA database sampling see:

  1. DNA Saves http://www.katieslaw.org/video.html
  2. Chicago’s Study on Preventable Crimes - requiring DNA for Felony arrests can solve and prevent violent crimes. Waiting for conviction can cost lives, Study by the City of Chicago, 2005 Chicago Preventable Crimes-Final.pdf
  3. Maryland Study on Preventable Crimes - Requiring DNA for qualifying arrests in the proposed legislation can solve and prevent violent crimes. Study by the Maryland Criminal Justice Information System, the Baltimore County Police Department and the Maryland State Police, 2008. MarylandDNAarresteestudy.pdf
  4. Washington State Preventable Crime Study 2008. WA Preventable Crime.pdf
  5. The FBI Rules for Arrestee and Detainee DNA Collection, Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 76, 4/18/08. the FBI final rule on arrestee and detainee testing.pdf
  6. Denver’s Study on Preventable Crimes - Requiring DNA for felony arrests can solve and prevent violent crimes. Waiting for conviction can cost lives and allows sexual predators to continue to rape victims, Study by the Denver District Attorney’s Office 2009. Denver's Preventable Crimes Study.pdf
  7. Why Arrestee DNA Legislation Can Save Indianan Taxpayers Over $50 Million Per Year, Siegel and Narveson, January 2009. Indiana Arrestee Legislation - Jan 13 2009.pdf
  8. The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling on Arrest, DH Kaye 2000, http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/genlaw/01-CJLPP-arrest.htm
  9. Virginia’s Arrestee DNA Database was established January 1, 2003. The first hit to the Arrestee Database occurred after the upload of the first 80 samples into the database. As of December 31, 2008, a total of 483 hits to the Arrestee Database had been obtained. 80 of the hits to arrestees were associated with sexual assault cases. http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/statistics/index.cfm
  10. DNA Saves: More states are finding collecting DNA upon arrest saves lives, money and time, by Ronnie Garrett, Officer.com, February 2009 issue, http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/DNA-saves/1$45826