Crime

Fed Court Upholds Calif. Law That People Arrested for Felonies Must Give DNA

Calif. Court Upholds Taking DNA Samples From Those Arrested on Felony Charge

(Photo: High Point Enterprise)

SAN FRANCISCO (TheBlaze/AP) — Arrested on a felony charge in California? Be prepared to open wide and let them take a swab of your cheek. A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies.

(Related: California court rules arrestees’ DNA collection unconstitutional)

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.”

Wired reports that 21 other states have laws taking DNA from those arrested on a felony charge

Fletcher said he believed the privacy rights of arrestees never charged with felonies should trump law enforcement’s need to collect to the DNA. Wired has more from Fletcher’s dissent:

I would conclude that Proposition 69 is unconstitutional. My reasoning is straightforward. Fingerprints may be taken from an arrestee in order to identify him — that is, to determine whether he is who he claims to be. But fingerprints may not be taken from an arrestee solely for an investigative purpose, absent a warrant or reasonable suspicion that the fingerprints would help solve the crime for which he was taken into custody. DNA samples are not taken from felony arrestees under Proposition 69 in order to identify them. Rather, they are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

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.

In 2004, voters helped pass Proposition 69 and full implementation of the law began in 2009.

Comments (37)

  • Wat Tyler
    Posted on March 2, 2012 at 1:01am

    USSA- More Communism by the hour.

    What is to stop a renegade Gestapo (no! Not in Amerika) from arresting somebody on a bogus charge, knowing it’s a bogus charge, just to obtain DNA because he has a hunch about an unrelated crime.

    It’s 1775 people! Wake up! Get ready!

    Report Post » Wat Tyler  
  • thinkingoutloud
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:57pm

    ..or the DNA can be used for the new commodity to pay off the debt, organ harvesting for the elite.

    Report Post »  
    • little big man
      Posted on February 25, 2012 at 11:36am

      sniff sniff I smell another court case going up the chain to the S.C.

      Report Post » little big man  
    • Wat Tyler
      Posted on March 2, 2012 at 1:05am

      That too. Identifying and weeding out the genetic undesirables. Identifying the “desirables” for future organ harvests for the patrician class. Dr. Mengele’s dream come true.

      Heil!

      Report Post » Wat Tyler  
    • Wat Tyler
      Posted on March 2, 2012 at 1:07am

      All in the name of “public safety”.

      Report Post » Wat Tyler  
    • Wat Tyler
      Posted on March 2, 2012 at 1:09am

      How correct can Ron Paul be? Is he a prophet or what?

      Report Post » Wat Tyler  
  • rightbrain222
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 3:37pm

    Yes of course you must give DNA, but they can’t ask about immigration status, it’s a violation of privacy.

    Report Post »  
  • brntout
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 3:18pm

    What’s to stop them from using DNA gathered from you and find out what disease you may be pre-disposed to developing and….Voila, cooked up a genetic molatov cocktail too off you when you are no longer of use to society. Just a passing,random thought.

    Report Post »  
  • independentvoteril
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 2:54pm

    Bush signed a bill when the DEMOCRATS took over the house and senate.. MANDATING that ALL newborns give DNA to be put in a data base..bill was sponsored by DOBB and signed by Bush I believe in 2007.. it was suppose to be a blind study however.. more and more people are finding their child’s DNA in this national data base and they are identified by the SS number the child is given at birth now right in the delivery room.. so it doesn’t take a genius to know they CAN and ARE identified.. It would also make since that they will be finding other ways to get the DNA from ALL of us.. CA usually is the first.. next step would be to make a lot of the misdemeanors felony’s thereby allowing the taking of even MORE DNA.. they KNOW people won’t give it up is they mandate it.. think of all the places they could get it.. dentists office.. doctors office and soon we will all be in a national data base with the GOVERNMENT OWNING our DNA like the bio companies own the DNA of diseases such as breast cancer.(a 60 minute special about a year and a half ago). you have to connect the dots..and NO ONE is doing ANYTHING about it.. next OBAMA care where they can cross reference all this and the drug companies can target you on a disease you MIGHT get..the ultimate control..and intrusion.. Given a few short years they can know the majority of peoples weaknesses and lets think WHAT could they do with that information?? lets imagine

    Report Post » independentvoteril  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:37am

      Hey genius, hospitals do not give out Social Security numbers at the hospital at birth…Parents submit paperwork to apply for a social security number to the SS admin later

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 2:39pm

    With this being from the ninth circut court of appeals its no shock in the least – more power to the fed and fewer rights for all of us.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 2:58pm

      yes agree nothing good ever comes from the 9th circuit court

      Report Post »  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:41am

      There has to be a Constitutional way for We the People to get rid of the jokers in the 9th Circuit. Seems perhaps we could empanel a Grand Jury to indict them somehow. We have that ability though most jurists and legal “scholars” like to tell us that we can’t. I remember reading something from Scalia…hmmm now I have to go do some research

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
  • ACACIA
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 2:38pm

    i‘m all for it they should take dna from you at the place you are born in case something should happen to you and your fingerprints aren’t on file

    Report Post »  
    • Rajabear1
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 3:05pm

      Are you serious? Your fingerprints shouldn‘t be ’on file‘ anywhere unless you’ve been arrested, your parents CHOOSE to do an ID card for missing children or you’re applying for a job that requires it etc. Just being born does not mean you must have bio id for any type of government tracking of any sort.
      You want fingerprints or DNA profile for yourself or child for ‘safety’ sake, have at it, but don’t impose it on anyone else.

      Report Post »  
  • skippy6
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 2:03pm

    Is everyone missing the picture!! Define felony? 80,000 new pages of law per year!! You can be a felon if you shoot a cat!!! This is nothing more than a fascist police state….Wilson would be proud…Next they will take your guns away for what you did not know to be Illegal because you didn’t read line 56,326 part A-125C subsection 301-M….ect….

    Report Post » skippy6  
  • MrMagoo
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:38pm

    Using DNA for felonies now….misdemeanors will be next.Once ‘authority’ gets away with this,all in the name of ‘identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused’,it will eventually become accepted common practice to use DNA for identity.Little bits at a time…..the database grows larger….they’ll know when we go to the bathroom and take a crap sooner or later.Meters on the toilet and whats in it is next.And of course be taxed ‘appropriately’ for each flush.

    Report Post » MrMagoo  
  • justangry
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:20pm

    Yay! Another score for the police state.

    Report Post » justangry  
  • HorseCrazy
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:18pm

    this is not good. letting our freedoms slip away for the “greater good”. unless you are convicted of a felony and have had a trial which proves it, you should not be forced to give your dna away. this is a presumption of guilt in my opinion.

    Report Post »  
  • Dismayed Veteran
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:07pm

    I agree with Judge Fletcher.

    Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
  • cemerius
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:07pm

    I hav mixed feelings about this, since in the Marine Corps it’s standard practice for identification purposes. If I was lost and my body not recovered after many years like my fallen Viet Nam brothers. I would love to have them use my DNA to give my family closure! On the other hand if they are just “suspects” detained for felonies and NOT convicted of the crime THIS should not be allowed! As soon as they are convicted their butts belong to the state and they can take ALL the DNA they want from the felons!!! I hope they convict them for cold case crimes they commited with this DNA too!!

    Report Post » cemerius  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:16pm

      Spot on. Conviction should be the requirement.

      Report Post »  
  • moreteaplease
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:03pm

    To be honest, I thought this one was already on the books.

    Sooo many rules and regs these days….I can’t keep up anymore ( rolleyes )
    It’s like the federal government has a mass production facility for cranking out regs, restrictions, etc. anymore.

    Report Post » moreteaplease  
    • brntout
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:11pm

      NYUCK-NYUCK-NYUCK…MOE,LARRY, CHEESE!!!! Sorry one of my favorite of theirs. Your Avatar did it.

      Report Post »  
  • sawbuck
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:47pm

    It’s not going to be long now….Utopia is around the courner.
    Thay have the kids in the data base …Now anyone who gets arrested .
    Soon it will be pushed as the new I.D. numbering system.
    It’s for your own protection ..They are here to help …!

    Report Post » sawbuck  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:52pm

      Yes indeed just get caught taking a pee in the woods and you’ll have to register as a sex offender.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • CatB
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:42pm

    Are they going to do the same to ILLEGALS caught? .. somehow I doubt it .. that would make identifying them as they come in and out of the country and system too easy.

    Report Post »  
  • AxelPhantom
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:34pm

    Guess this one is going to the US supremes.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:41pm

      Yup .. the 9th CIRCUS is a joke .. they never met an infringement of the Constitution they didn’t like.

      Report Post »  
  • brntout
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:28pm

    Operative word here is arrested,not convicted.Do not underestimate a routine traffic stop won’t be coming soon.

    Report Post »  
    • brntout
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:31pm

      Ater all,,every evil do gooder,rights trashing,feedom robbing law seems to emenate from the California test bed.

      Report Post »  
    • Plan B
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:33pm

      My goodness, what country are we living in???

      Report Post »  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:52pm

      Routine traffic stops are not felonies, though I would feel more comfortable if the bar was conviction rather than arrest.

      Report Post »  
    • brntout
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:05pm

      @JERK You’re missing the point.Any way to get your name into the system whether you are a law abiding citizen or not. It’s about identifying everyone for control purposes.

      Report Post »  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on February 24, 2012 at 1:12pm

      No, the point was the requirement of being ‘arrested’ for a felony. My initial response was ‘good.’ But, reconsidering, I think that the requirement should be ‘convicted’ of a felony.

      They keep fingerprints from arrests. Should they?

      Report Post »  
  • The_Jerk
    Posted on February 24, 2012 at 12:27pm

    Good.

    Report Post »  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love