DNA Database Cases

 
 

 

This page presents legal decisions concerning statutory schemes requiring convicted felons to submit DNA samples for identification and database purposes. There are many cases upholding these statutes and a list of citation is provided here. Database case.PDF

Recently renewed challenges to DNA database statutes based on the Fourth Amendment have arisen. Cases addressing those issues are listed below:

  1. U.S. v. Kimler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, No. 02-3097, July 7, 2003. kilmer.PDF
  2. U.S. v. Kincade, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No.02-500380, Oct. 2, 2003. kincade.PDF Kincade #2 kincade2.PDF
  3. U.S. v. Sczubelek, U.S. District Court Delaware, No. CRIM.A.94-8-SLR, April 2, 2003. sczubelek.PDF
  4. Nicholas v. Goord, U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, No. 01Civ.7891(RCC)(GWG), Feb. 6, 2003. goord.PDF
  5. Roe v. Marcotte, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 98-2790, Sept. 16, 1999 marcotte.PDF
  6. U.S. v. Plotts, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, No. 02-3412, Oct. 22, 2003. plotts.PDF
  7.  7. Maryland v. Raines, Maryland CA No.129 August 26, 2004. raines.PDF
  8. Coffey v. Superior Court, California CA Div. 5, No. A108693, 5/24/05 (A defendant convicted, on a felony complaint, of an offense punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor may be compelled to give a DNA sample, and is not entitled to have information deleted from the state's DNA bank if the offense is eventually determined to be a misdemeanor.) coffey.PDF
  9. John Doe, et al. v. Moore, U. S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit, No. 04-10279, June 6, 2005. John Doe v. Moore.pdf
  10. US v. Johnson, US Court of Appeals Third Circuit, 6/14/05. johnson.PDF
  11. U.S. v. Fazzini --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 1567308 C.A.7 (Ill.), 6/6/05. Fazzini.pdf
  12. U.S. v. Kraklio, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th CIRCUIT, No. 06-1369, 6/27/06, No Fourth Amendment violation in the required DNA sampling of individuals on probation, parole or supervised release following federal criminal convictions. US v. Kraklio.pdf
  13. U.S. v. Conley, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit. No. 05-5900 7/7/06, (an order of the district court requiring defendant to submit to blood sampling for DNA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 14135a, which was imposed as part of her sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to bank fraud, is affirmed over claims that: 1) the collection of her DNA violated the Fourth Amendment, as a search required some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing; 2) the DNA testing did not meet the requirements of the "special needs" doctrine; and 3) the search failed the "totality of the circumstances" test). U.S. v. Conley.PDF
  14. Banks v. U.S., U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit. No. No. 06-5068 6/18/07, (the court applied the totality-of-circumstances test in upholding the Federal DNA database statute). Banks et al v. US.PDF
  15. U.S. v. Lujan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 02-30237, Oct. 2, 2007, the court upheld the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 42 U.S.C. §§14135-14135e rejecting claims it violated the 4th Amendment, the Ex Post Facto Clause, that is was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and contravened the separation of powers. Lujan.PDF
  16. U.S. v. Kriesel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 06-30110, 11/29/07, the court upheld the “Justice for All Act” of 2004 which amended 42 U.S.C. §§14135-14135e rejecting claims it violated the 4th Amendment. Kriesel.PDF
  17. U.S. v. Amerson, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Nos. 05-1423 and 05-1063, 4/4/07, the court upheld the constitutionality of “Justice for All Act” of 2004 rejecting the claim that it violates the 4th Amendment Amerson.pdf
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Good v. Superior Court of Humbolt County, California Court of Appeals, 1st District, Division 1, A117317, 1/16/08, requiring registering sex offenders to give a DNA sample for the database regardless of the date of their offense was constitutional. Good.PDF