Prosecutors Desk 6-9-13

The United States Supreme Court last week announced a decision that has been called one of the most important cases that the court has decided in the last fifty years. It expands the law regarding arrest to include the taking of DNA as part of the identification process of arrested persons.

It has been a long-standing practice that police may photograph and take the fingerprints when they arrest a suspect. The photos and fingerprints can then be used by law enforcement agencies to compare with other photos and fingerprints to solve other crimes.

With modern improvements in science and technology, the field of DNA testing and analysis has become a standard method of identification of persons. It is used commonly to solve crimes, determine parentage, establish guilt and importantly, occasionally determine innocence after a conviction. 28 states now allow DNA to be taken upon a felony arrest.

Maryland is one of those states. In the case before the Supreme Court, Alonzo King was arrested on an assault charge in 2009 and his DNA was taken. It was found to match the DNA sample in a 2003 unsolved rape case. The defendant was subsequently convicted of the rape, based in part on DNA evidence and sentenced to a life term in prison.

Mr. King appealed the rape conviction and the case wound its way through the appeal process to the United States Supreme Court. He wanted the court to declare that the law allowing the taking of the DNA sample upon his arrest was an unconstitutional search and a violation of his right to privacy.

The court refused to rule that the Maryland law was unconstitutional. The court likened the taking of an arrestee’s DNA to be much like a photo and fingerprint. The court declared it was not a violation of a person’s federal rights to have DNA taken at his arrest and his DNA compared to the national database and used against him to prove his guilt of a different crime.

Whether or not this change makes it into Washington law is another matter. Federal law sets the minimum standard, but in Washington, our courts have sometimes decided that the Washington Constitution provides more protection than the federal constitution and has ruled some things unconstitutional in Washington that are permitted under federal law. The Washington legislature will no doubt consider whether there should be such a law and if they pass it, our courts will decide if it is legal in Washington.

Comments are closed.