Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01369/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Johnny Kraklio
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1369

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Ray Johnny Kraklio, *

*

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

Filed: June 27, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Ray Johnny Kraklio (Kraklio), a federal probationer, appeals the district

court’s1

 order modifying his conditions of probation to require Kraklio to have his

DNA collected as directed by his probation officer, pursuant to the DNA Analysis

Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (DNA Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135-14135e. We

affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1369 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061375
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Kraklio was sentenced to two years’ probation on November 29, 2004,

following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On November 27, 2005, the United States Probation Office

directed Kraklio to appear on December 13, 2005, to submit a blood sample for the

purpose of gathering his DNA pursuant to the DNA Act. Kraklio refused. The

Probation Office moved to modify the conditions of Kraklio’s release to require

Kraklio’s cooperation in the DNA collection. Kraklio resisted the motion, arguing

collection of his DNA constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of

the Fourth Amendment. On January 19, 2006, the district court, in a thorough and

well reasoned order, granted the Probation Office’s motion, but stayed enforcement

pending Kraklio’s appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

We review de novo the district court’s conclusion the DNA Act does not violate

the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Newton, 259 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir.

2001).

The DNA Act mandates the collection of DNA samples by the United States

Probation Office from individuals on probation, parole, or supervised release, who

have been convicted of certain qualifying federal offenses. 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2).

Kraklio’s felon in possession conviction is a qualifying offense. See id.

§ 14135a(d)(1) (including “[a]ny felony” as a qualifying offense). Under the DNA

Act, DNA samples are sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory for

inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). See generally id. § 14132;

see also H.R. Rep. 106-900(I), at 8 (2000). DNA records may be used only for law

enforcement identification purposes by criminal justice agencies, in judicial

proceedings, and for criminal defense purposes. See 42 U.S.C. § 14132(b)(3). DNA

Appellate Case: 06-1369 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061375
-3-

records are expunged from CODIS when a conviction is overturned, no charge is filed,

charges have been dismissed, or the charge resulted in acquittal. See id.

§ 14132(d)(1)(A).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides “[t]he right

of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The government does not

dispute the drawing of blood for purposes of DNA collection is a search subject to

Fourth Amendment scrutiny. See Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S.

602, 616 (1989). The question, then, is whether the search is reasonable. United

States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118 (2001) (“The touchstone of the Fourth

Amendment is reasonableness.”); see also Samson v. California, 547 U.S. ___, No.

04-9728, slip op. at 11 n.4 (June 19, 2006).

Every federal circuit considering DNA indexing statutes has upheld the statutes

as constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. See Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652,

671 (2d Cir. 2005) (reviewing comparable state DNA indexing statute); United States

v. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175, 184 (3d Cir. 2005) (reviewing the DNA Act), petition for

cert. filed, Dec. 2, 2005 (No. 05-7955); Padgett v. Donald, 401 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th

Cir.) (reviewing comparable state DNA indexing statute), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 352

(2005); United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 830-32 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc)

(reviewing the DNA Act), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1638 (2005); Green v. Berge, 354

F.3d 675, 677-79 (7th Cir. 2004) (reviewing comparable state DNA indexing statute);

Groceman v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 354 F.3d 411, 413-14 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

(reviewing the DNA Act); United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132, 1146 (10th Cir.

2003) (reviewing the DNA Act); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306-08 (4th Cir.

1992) (reviewing comparable state DNA indexing statute).

The only disagreement among the circuits is what analytical approach to use in

upholding the statutes. The majority of circuits employ a reasonableness standard,

Appellate Case: 06-1369 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061375
-4-

determining whether the search and seizure is reasonable based on the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the search and seizure and the nature of the search and

seizure itself. See Sczubelek, 402 F.3d at 184-86; Padgett, 401 F.3d at 1280; 

Kincade, 379 F.3d at 832; Groceman, 354 F.3d at 413; Jones, 962 F.2d at 307. Under

this approach, the court balances “the degree to which [the search and seizure]

intrudes upon an individual’s privacy” with “the degree to which [the search and

seizure] is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Knights,

534 U.S. at 119 (quotation omitted); see also Samson, slip op. at 3. A minority of

circuits apply a special needs approach, examining whether special needs exist which

sufficiently justify a search and seizure absent a warrant and probable cause. See

Nicholas, 430 F.3d at 671; Green, 354 F.3d at 679; Kimler, 335 F.3d at 1146; cf.

Samson, slip op. at 11 n.4. The district court in this case upheld the constitutionality

of the DNA Act using the reasonableness standard.

The circuits favoring the reasonableness standard have concluded “the purpose

for the collection of DNA goes well beyond the supervision by the Probation Office

of an individual on supervised release,” Sczubelek, 402 F.3d at 184, which was the

situation in the Supreme Court’s leading special needs approach case involving

supervision of probationers, Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987). These circuits

therefore apply the more rigorous totality of the circumstances test outlined in Knights

as the more appropriate precedent. See, e.g., Sczubelek, 402 F.3d at 184; Padgett, 401

F.3d at 1279-80; but see Nicholas, 430 F.3d at 667 (“We therefore continue to hold

suspicionless searches to the higher standard of review embodied in the special-needs

inquiry.”). We agree with this reasoning. Following the majority of circuits having

addressed this issue, we employ the Knights reasonableness standard to determine the

constitutionality of the DNA Act.

The Third Circuit applied the Knights analysis and found the DNA Act

constitutional. See Sczubelek, 402 F.3d at 184-86. Given probationers’ diminished

privacy rights, Samson, slip op. at 4 (quoting Knights, 534 U.S. at 119), the minimal

Appellate Case: 06-1369 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061375
-5-

intrusion involved in obtaining DNA samples, and the legitimate governmental

interest in using DNA as a crime investigating tool, we adopt the reasoning in

Sczubelek and hold, based on the totality of the circumstances, the collection of DNA

under the DNA Act for inclusion in the CODIS database does not constitute an

unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s order modifying Kraklio’s conditions of

probation.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1369 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061375