California Courts of Appeal,
Constitutional Law,
Criminal
Dec. 5, 2014
State law requiring DNA sample collection unconstitutional, appeals court rules
A state court of appeal here ruled on Wednesday that a California law requiring police to collect a DNA sample from anyone arrested of a felony is unconstitutional.
By Emily Green
Daily Journal Staff Writer SAN FRANCISCO - A state court of appeal here ruled Wednesday that a California law requiring police to collect a DNA sample from anyone arrested of a felony is unconstitutional. The ruling is the first court decision to decide the constitutionality of the state law in the wake of a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that endorsed broad collection of DNA samples. The high court upheld a Maryland law giving police the right to take DNA samples from people arrested for serious crimes. Writing for the court, 1st District Court of Appeal Justice J. Anthony Kline distinguished the Maryland and California laws. People v. Buza, A125542. The Maryland law doesn't permit a DNA sample to be processed until after the arrestee is charged. The California law applies to people arrested for any felony and requires immediate analysis. Additionally, the Maryland law provides for the automatic expungement of the DNA if the person is not convicted. California law puts the burden on the arrestee to seek expungement and the outcome of that process is not guaranteed. "The differences between the California and Maryland DNA laws significantly alter the weight of the governmental interests and privacy considerations to be balanced in determining constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment," Kline wrote for the Division 2 panel. He was joined by Justice James A. Richman and Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven A. Brick, sitting pro tem. While the court's ruling extensively weighed the U.S. Supreme Court decision, it based its decision on the California Constitution. Among other things, the panel found, the law violates the reasonable expectation of privacy under the state constitution. "Analysis of DNA collected from arrestees does not serve the asserted governmental purpose - identification - and the apparent actual purpose for taking DNA samples at this early stage - investigation - cannot be squared with constitutional principles protecting against suspicionless searches," Kline wrote. A second lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California's law is percolating in the federal courts. In March, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court for it to address the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the lawsuit. emily_green@dailyjournal.com