Get SF Weekly Newsletters

Monday, September 17, 2012

State's DNA Collection Laws Face Appellate Court Review

Posted By on Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Who should be subject to police DNA testing?
  • Who should be subject to police DNA testing?

Last week, opening arguments began in the murder trial of William Payne. Prosecutors have charged Payne with killing 41-year-old Nikolaus Crumbley in 1983. The trial will spotlight the advancements of DNA technology.

Payne was arrested earlier this year, after the state's Department of Justice matched DNA from semen found at the 1983 murder scene with Payne's DNA sample from an unrelated 1986 assault conviction.

Interestingly, while law enforcement has had Payne's DNA sample for more than 20 years, only recently has DNA technology matched him to the 1983 murder sample.

As the Payne case shows, DNA collection has become an increasingly valuable asset in investigating crimes -- for both cracking cold cases and exonerating the wrongly convicted. It is fitting then, that as that trial proceeds, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will be contemplating the constitutionality of the state's DNA collection laws. The main question: Should police be allowed to take DNA samples only from people convicted of felonies?

In 2004, 62 percent of California voters passed Proposition 69, which authorized police to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony charge. More than half the states follow similar protocols.

This Wednesday, though, the American Civil Liberties Union will argue before the court that the policy is an unconstitutional infringement into personal privacy, and that only convicted felony offenders should be subject to genetic testing.

The difference between the two options -- convicted versus arrested -- is not negligible. The Associated Press reported that "California law enforcement officials are collecting more than 11,000 samples a month"-- which adds up to more than 132,000 a year. And according to ACLU data, more than 50,000 Californians are arrested but not convicted for a felony every year. Which means that the Ninth Circuit's decision will likely apply to more than one-third of the state's annual collection total.

It's one of America's oldest policy debates. Oftentimes, balancing personal liberty with collective security is a zero-sum game.

The Ninth Circuit already approved the law in the years since it passed, ruling that DNA samples simply fill the same role fingerprinting has for decades. However, as the AP explained, "underscoring the importance of the debate, a majority of the court's 24 judges voted to reconsider that divided ruling of three-judge panel. The matter now goes before a special "en banc" court of 11 judges."

In April, Maryland's court of appeals rules that the state's DNA collection laws (which are similar to California's) violated the constitution's protections against unwarranted search and seizures. Three months later, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the nation's highest court might hear the case.

Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF

  • Pin It

Tags: , , , ,

About The Author

Albert Samaha


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Popular Stories

  1. Most Popular Stories
  2. Stories You Missed

Like us on Facebook


  • clipping at Brava Theater Sept. 11
    Sub Pop recording artists 'clipping.' brought their brand of noise-driven experimental hip hop to the closing night of 2016's San Francisco Electronic Music Fest this past Sunday. The packed Brava Theater hosted an initially seated crowd that ended the night jumping and dancing against the front of the stage. The trio performed a set focused on their recently released Sci-Fi Horror concept album, 'Splendor & Misery', then delved into their dancier and more aggressive back catalogue, and recent single 'Wriggle'. Opening performances included local experimental electronic duo 'Tujurikkuja' and computer music artist 'Madalyn Merkey.'"