Maryland v. King
569 U.S. 435 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- In 2003, an armed and masked man broke into a woman's home in Salisbury, Maryland, and raped her.
- Police investigating the 2003 rape collected a DNA sample from the perpetrator but were unable to identify a suspect.
- In 2009, Alonzo King was arrested in Wicomico County, Maryland, on charges of first- and second-degree assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun.
- During the booking process following his 2009 arrest, police collected a DNA sample from King's inner cheek using a buccal swab, as authorized by the Maryland DNA Collection Act.
- King's DNA profile, generated from the buccal swab, was uploaded to Maryland's DNA database.
- Several weeks later, King's DNA profile was matched to the DNA sample recovered from the 2003 rape scene, leading to his indictment for that crime.
Procedural Posture:
- Alonzo King was indicted by a grand jury for the 2003 rape.
- In the Circuit Court for Wicomico County (trial court), King filed a motion to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing its collection violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied King's motion, upholding the constitutionality of the Maryland DNA Collection Act.
- Following a trial, King was convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to life in prison.
- King, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland, as the appellee's court, reversed the conviction, finding that the DNA collection was an unreasonable search.
- The State of Maryland, as the petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the collection of a DNA sample via a buccal swab from an individual lawfully arrested for a serious offense, as part of a routine booking procedure, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No, the collection of a DNA sample from an individual lawfully arrested for a serious offense does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Taking a DNA sample via a buccal swab is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. The court's analysis balances the legitimate government interests against the minimal intrusion on the arrestee's diminished privacy. The government has significant interests in accurately identifying arrestees to determine their criminal history, assess the danger they pose, make informed bail decisions, and ensure they are available for trial. The physical intrusion of a cheek swab is negligible, posing no risk, trauma, or pain. Because an individual lawfully in custody for a serious offense has a reduced expectation of privacy, this minor intrusion is outweighed by the substantial state interests. The court analogized this process to the long-standing and accepted practices of fingerprinting and photographing arrestees, viewing DNA collection as a more advanced and accurate method of identification.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes, the collection of a DNA sample from an arrestee without individualized suspicion for the purpose of criminal investigation violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment forbids searches for evidence of a crime absent a basis for believing the person is guilty. Suspicionless searches are permissible only for 'special needs' entirely separate from ordinary law enforcement. The majority's 'identification' rationale is a pretext; the true purpose of the search is to solve cold cases. The facts demonstrate this was not for identification: Maryland law forbids testing before arraignment, the process took months, and King's identity was already known. The DNA match identified the previously unknown rapist's sample, not King. Unlike fingerprinting, which is used for rapid identification, DNA collection as practiced here serves a purely investigative function, which has never been allowed without suspicion. This decision opens the door to a 'genetic panopticon' where the DNA of anyone arrested for any reason can be taken and stored.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the scope of permissible searches incident to arrest by classifying DNA collection as a routine booking procedure for identification purposes, rather than an investigatory search requiring suspicion. It established that the government's interest in creating a comprehensive biometric database to identify arrestees and link them to past crimes outweighs an arrestee's privacy interest in their genetic information. The ruling solidifies the constitutional legitimacy of arrestee DNA collection statutes in over half the states and the federal system. Future legal challenges will likely concern the definition of a 'serious offense' and whether technological advancements that allow for the extraction of more sensitive genetic data from DNA samples would alter the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness balancing test.
