an unreasonable taking of a prisoner's d n a sample without providing appropriate level of process mr garza will discuss the violation of mr johnson's due process rights and i will address the violation of mr johnson's fourth amendment right right the fact they took the sample before they should not have i mean even though a prisoner's rights might be diminished in a prison setting they still have rights and the fact that this was taken against his protest and the state recognized the fact that they should not take an example  determining reasonableness under the fourth and then as the court has held and the supreme court has also recognize that and so because it's a relevant factor and the state law here is the justification given for the taking of the sample therefore the sta look at the facts that the people being take the samples are being taken from are also the people committing the predicate offense and so the fact that here we have a state statute in which mr johnson had not committed a predicate offense that's not something that the court  be constitutional and the fourth amendment would prohibit that certainty the fourth amendment violation triggered off of the statutory violation but you want to use that as also true for the fourth amendment violation to come into the reasonable yes yes because the judgment that it would be a reasonable it's not a part of who we look at the reason was what part of that looking at is looking at what society deems reasonable and what the california legislature deemed reasonable at the time was that felons sex offenders johnson in this case it is unconstitutional the plus is i'm not going to say that it was good for this being threatened it was being coerced into submitting samples that he didn't need to submit it was the chilling a fact that the director of the punishment had on him there was he didn't grieve any of this any of the prison officials that sions immediately after the submission of the samples because of the chilling effect as had he his parole that was less than three months away from the time to submit the samples were submitted he was afraid to not choose to say no i don't want to i'm not supposed to be registering under the statute if i arguing that the plus is not the four go well it does seem like it is a foregoing the rights of the rights of the plus is the possible extent the possible extension of his of his prison time he was required to take part in a registration in some type of sexual deviant program before he was allowed to be released that was something that he was required to deal before affirmatively go into some kind of program but he did have to give up his grievance rights that he would have otherwise asserted but he was afraid to do so because of the threat of extending this for all is that what you're reason why couldn't he have afterwards it could have been heard afterwards but that would not have been a meaningful time and meaningful manner why's that it's not because regardless of when there's a liberty interest involved regardless of whether you an informal or formal process or but that's not what matters what you need is the opportunity to be heard specially when the wind protected liberty interests are implicated the hearing should be prior that's what the supreme court said in the raw case that when there are liberty interests meaning anything that hearing needs to be prior to deprivation here we had liberty interest and no prior hearing ok so in this case the liberty interest was body intrude upon the rights about it molly integrity and he has an interest in not being stigmatized as a sex offender ok now the stigma stigmatizing thing could have been cured because it didn't go public no you can't do that and they do that anyway is that something that can be done on the fourth and then the jewish  need to reach that issue because i don't think there you can find a constitutional harm here for two reasons one because the mere fact of state of the taking the blood a pinprick has is so is to minimize and the real harm which would have been inclusion in the d n a database and perhaps a hit of some sort never occurred he was in the d n a database but as a result of his grievance and he did file a grievance five days before he was released from prison and by the time into ninety six at the time were linked they're not linked anymore and so i think there's a lot of confusion among on his part and the prison officials on that he did file a grievance on april thirteenth he was released on april eighteenth he was back in i think something like eleven days later by the time he got back you know and the grievance was being processed and he with they decided you're not registered bowl under two ninety as we currently are applying california law in raking in the sample  database but as a result of the finding that he shouldn't have he shouldn't have been they sponged the sample and removed it i think from the id profiles removed in two thousand and one the last of the specimens were were eliminated i think in two thousand four now you're correct under that under the new current statute he has there's multiple sections under which he would be obligated to register and in fact i checked this week he in fact a new sample was provided in december of two thousand and five minutes after  awaiting analysis and preparation of the d n a profile so because back to the notion somehow there's no harm no foul you violate the fourth amendment that's the marvel of i don't know if there's any authority for the well there's also  if you look at rice that was one of the questions and arise because one and one of the two plaintiffs in rise had had a sample taken when he did not have a qualifying offense in the case they found that there was no violation because there is no ca connection between the actions of the particular defendants and the taking the samples that is also the case here because the my evidence is that a records officer instructed a nurse that their interpretation the statute was that he had to provide a sample and she took the sample there isn't any none of those records officers are defendants we don't even know who they are that goes to with the mere fact that somebody if if so if you take my d n a and you have no right to do it  to that level he didn't as the courts correctly point out lose any time credits he wasn't disciplined he wasn't threatened with criminal action the assertion that he was children filing agreements i don't think is borne out by the facts and see in fact did file agreement  as to avoid the stigma well he didn't give it up to avoid the stigma your honor he gave it up because he thought i believe incorrectly that if he had done that he would have risked a disciplinary action which would have extended t which he could be released from parole another reality is when he did file a grievance that was granted so and had he done that promptly in january when he was told he had to provide the sample instead of waiting until a few days before he left that issue may have been result well before he had gone so i just don't i don't think it's the stigma plus the liberty interest analysis really fits the facts of this case there is there is some kind of class when you have to essentially  he shortly before he was going to parole he was told he had he was given notice that he would have to register when he got out that was really what he was most upset about i think at the time at the time only under two ninety six only persons convicted of felony indecent exposure had to register and it was linked to so that those are the people who would take samples from felony offenders who had to register the current statute provides for both felony and not get to this question that there are there are special circumstances i think in a prison that nate makes the collection of d n a perhaps even more and more important in that context and that is that isabel know there are assault sexual and otherwise that occur in officials in identifying assailants who might not other be on lies be identified and then taking security measures to deal with that factory now they have if the person doesn't come forward identifies attack prisoners enough to justify whether there's any fortunate right and just how far does it go and you know obviously prisoners are subjected to blanket searches of all type of plane is a point out well it should draw the line and turn a well prisoners have internal type sources all the that the people had committed a predicate offense now the one place petitioner there the head had not committed it part of the problem there the court held was in the due process and they looked at dino's williams and said it was just probably nail negligence that well trained california state prison officials know that prisoners have constitutional rights and their actions can impact those constitutional rights and so part of it goes to looking at what their own procedures are in place but there's also trainings in the prison and things like that for the employees so part of it goes to what they know and they know that there are rights there and that their actions could implicate those and so that that should give them the notice i mean to do frequently by inmates f violations so it's not like prison officials don't know that their actions can