Court Summary
The paper depicts a Court of Appeals hearing on the case of King v. State, which is related to the issue of the use of DNA evidence in the context of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. As I understood, two opposing sides represented by Celia Anderson Davis and Robert Taylor provided various rational reasons regarding the issue of DNA use. Davis insisted that DNA contains considerable amounts of personal information, which makes it impossible to use it as a means of identification as it violates the Fourth Amendment. She also denied that if DNA is used for identification purposes only it may represent a similar principle as fingerprint, voice or photographic identification. Taylor stated that DNA analysis is strictly limited by the law and does not violate any medical condition privacies, hence it can be used for identification. Even though I understood most of the court’s process, it was hard to figure out what context various references to other cases bring as I am not familiar with them.
King v. State Case Brief
Alonzo Jay King, jr. v. State of Maryland
Court of Appeals of Maryland,
No. 68, Sept. Term, 2011.
425 Md. 550
Facts
Alonzo Jay King was arrested and charged with first and second-degree assault. According to Maryland’s law, the Maryland DNA Collection Act, DNA samples should be taken from any serious crime-related arrestee. King’s DNA sample was collected and analyzed via a DNA database. It was found to match a DNA record linked with an unsolved rape case. A second DNA sample was taken to obtain sufficient DNA for the statewide DNA database. King received an allegation of 2003 rape with a DNA match as evidence.
Issues
Does DNA sample collection from arrestees and its analysis for identification purposes violate rights established by the Fourth Amendment?
Holdings
The Court of Appeals of Maryland decided that the Maryland DNA Collection Act is unconstitutional and reversed King’s rape conviction.
Reasoning
An act of DNA sample collection represents a controversial issue related to an individual’s privacy and government interests. As technological tools develop, much more personal information may be obtained from DNA samples. Therefore, it should not be considered only a means of identification such as fingerprints or photographs. The swab of the inner cheek to extract DNA interferes with arrestees’ privacy interests and is violating the Fourth Amendment.
Dissenting Opinion (Rendell)
The collection of a DNA sample does not identify’ an arrestee or pre-trial detainee any more than a search of his home does — it merely collects more and more information about that arrestee or pre-trial detainee that can be used to investigate unsolved past or future crimes. Upholding the statute simply because of restrictions on the use of the material obtained would be analogous to allowing the government to seize private medical records without a warrant, but restrict their use only to the portion of the records that serve to identify the patient.
Analysis
The Court of Appeals determined that collecting and analyzing the DNA of arrestees was not legitimate and broke the principles of the Fourth Amendment. However, the case brought up a significant emerging issue, which was later judged by the Supreme Court, creating a precedent. Even though the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, it had value for case investigation and contributed to the evaluation of cold cases conviction rates over privacy concerns.