1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: Jun e 21, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 4986 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 JO SEPH B LEA, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 Ju di th K. N ak am ur a, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 M. V ictoria W ilson , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 Nina L alevic, Assistant Appellate D efender 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} De fendant J o s ep h Blea w as convicted of m ultip le counts of first degree 4 cr im ina l se xua l pe ne tr at iona nd f ir st d eg re e kidna

ppi ng i nvol vin g f

our se parate 5 vic tim s intw o se parate dis tr ic t c ourt ca se s, a nd a ppe al s. I n bo th a

ppe al s, c au se no. 6 A-1 -CA-3 49 86 an d A-1 -C A
- 35 08 5, Def en da nt co nt en ds th atNew Mex ic o’s DNA 7 Identification A ct (the Ac t) NMS A 1978 , §§ 29-16-1 to - 13 ( 19 9 7 , a s amended 8 through 2013 ) is unconsti tutio nal on its face , and on our own m otion we consolid ated 9 the appe al s. W e hol d tha t the A ct is not unc onst itu tio na l onit s f

ac e, a nd s um

m ar ily 10 re j ec t D ef en dant’ s r em ai nin g c ont en tio ns. W e the re fo re a ff irm the j udgm en t and 11 se nte nc e in b othc as es . 12 I. BACK GROUND 13 A . C au se N o. A -1 -C A -3 4986 14 { 2} On N ovem

ber 2, 19 8 8 , A.W. (V ictim 1), who w as 13 y ears old, w ent to her 15 hom e af

te r sc ho ol w he re a n un known m anw eari ng a ski m as k w as ly ing in w ai t, 16 ar m ed w ithakni fe
. T he m an va gin al ly pe ne tr at ed

V ic tim 1, a nd the n f

or ce d he r int o 17 the ba thr oom . A ft er

se curi ng the ba thr oom do or so V ic tim 1 c oul d no t e sc ap e, the 18 unkn own m an fled. Vic tim 1 wa s taken to the hosp ital, wher e a r ape kit was obtained 19 an d e vid en ce w as c oll ec te d from he r. T he r ap e kit

a nd e vid en ce w er e subs eque ntl y2

1 an al y ze d by

the A lbu que rque , N ew Me xic o Po lic e D ep ar tm en t (A PD ) cr im e la

b, a nd 2 a D NAprofile w as obtained which was not Vic tim 1’ s. T he foreign DN A profile wa s 3 entered into t h e Co m

b ined DN A I ndex Sy stem (CO DI S) database, but no m atches 4 w er e fo und. A ft er

thi s in iti al inv es tig at ion , the c as e w as c los ed pe ndi ng f urthe r le ad s 5 because no person was identified as the perpetrator. 6 { 3} Al m o s tt we n t y year s l at er , o n Au g u s t1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , B e r n a l i l l o Co u n t y Sh er i ff ’s 7 De partm ent (BCS D) deputies were dispatched to De fendant’ s hom e to investig ate a 8 vio lent do m estic dis put e, a nd arr es te d D ef en dant f or a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult a ga ins t a 9 hous eh old

m em be r an d a ggr av at ed

ba tte ry a ga ins t a hou se hol d m em

be r. P ur suant t o 10 the A ct , a buc ca l ce ll sw ab w as a dm ini ste re d to D ef en dant at the Be rn al ill o C ounty 11 Me tr opol itan D et en tio n C en te r to o bta in a D N A sa m ple
. T he r es ult ing D N A pr of ile 12 wa s then entered i n t o the COD IS c om puter database sy stem . P rosecutors 13 subs eque ntl y

dis m iss ed

the dom es tic vio le nc e ch ar ge s. 14 { 4} On January

13, 2 0 0 9 , APD De tective Sally Dy er w as inform ed of a CO DI S 15 da ta ba se m at chinv olv ing V ic tim 1’ s 19 88 c ri m in al se xua l pe ne tr at iona nd f or ei gn 16 D N A c oll ec te d f

ro m akno w n pr ost itu te w ho w as m ur de re d in A lbu que rque in 1985
. 17 D ef en dant w as ide nti fi ed as the ind ivi dua l w hose D N A m at ch ed the f or ei gn D N A in 18 the t w o c a se s. H ow e ve r , n o a rr e st w a s m a de b e c aus e A P D d e t e c t i ve s c on t i nued 19 inv es tig at ing D ef

en dant f or a lm ost a nothe r y ear, a s asus p e ct

in the dis ap pe ar an ce a nd3

1 de ath of

e le ve n w om ena nd a

f et us b etw ee n 20 03 and 2 006— cr im es co ll oquia lly 2 re fe rr ed

to as the “ W es t M es a” kil lin gs. 3 { 5} On D ecem

ber 4 , 201 0, Detective Dy er ob tained a search warrant f or a buccal 4 ce ll sw ab fr om D ef

en dant to be an al y ze d an d co m pare d to the f

or ei gn D N A pr of

ile 5 collected in Victim

1’ s crim inal sexual pen et ration case as w ell as other evidence 6 A PD de te ct ive s h ad obt ai ne d inc onne ct ionw iththe W es t M es a kil lin gs. Ba se d on 7 the D N A pr of

ile obt ai ne d as a re sul t of the se ar ch w ar ra nt, A PD fo ren si c sc ie nti st, 8 D onna Manogu e, de te rm ine d th at D ef en dant c oul d no t be e xc lud ed a s the sour ce of 9 the fo re ign D N A ta ke n fr om V ic tim 1 i n 19 88. D ef

en dant w as c harg ed

w ithone c ount 10 of c ri m ina l se xua l pe ne trati on i n th e fi rs t de gr ee , c ontrary to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 11 30- 9- 11( D ) (2 009) , a nd o ne c ount of kidna ppi ng, co ntr ar

y to N MS A 1978 , S ec tio n 12 30 -4 -1 (20 03 ). 13 { 6} O n th e day

of j ur y se le ct ion , Defen da nt said tha t he w an te d to w ai ve his 14 ap pe ar an ce a t tri al be ca use he f el t he ha d no de fe nse , oth er than th ose r ai se d by 15 pr etri al m oti ons w hic h ha d a lr ea dy be ende nie d. T he re w as dis cu ssi on a bout pos sib le 16 al te rn at ive s on how to pro ce ed , a nd u lti m at el y , it w as a gr ee d th at

the c as e w oul d be 17 tried to the j ury on stipulated f acts in D efendant’ s absence. De fendant signed a waiver 18 of appe ar an ce , w ai vin g his rig ht to appe ar a t “ al l pr oc ee din gs i n th is c as e” a nd “ tr ia l” 19 which the district court approved. A j ury wa s selected, and openin g instructio ns were4

1 g i v e n t o t h e ju ry. 2 { 7} The f

ollowing m orning, the district court was advised that the parties had 3 agreed to a set of stipu lations, and that De fendant still di d not want to be present at 4 tr ia l. I t w as a gr ee d th at the c ourt wo uld re ad the sti pul at ion of fa ct s to the j ur y , a nd 5 by doi ng s o, D ef

en dant w oul d no t w ai ve his r igh t t o a ppe al
. T he sti pul at ionof

f ac ts 6 w as f orm al ly a gr ee d up on, a nd s ign ed by c ouns el
. D ef

en da nt al so s ign ed

the 7 sti pul at ionof

f ac ts s ta tin g th at : 8 I ha ve r ea d an d unde rs tand the above [ sti pul at ionof f ac ts]
. I ha ve 9 di sc us se d t hi s ca se an d my co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wi th m y lawyers. I 10 understand th at by agree ing to these stipul ated fac ts above, I am 1 1 a g r e e i n g [ t h a t ] t h e s e f a c t s w i l l b e p r e s e n t e dt o t h e j u ry a s i f t h e y c a me 1 2 i n t h r o u g h t h e t e s t i mo n y o f t h e s t a t e ’s wi t n e s s e s . I v o l u n t a r i l y, 13 know ing ly

a nd i nte lli ge ntl y

a gr ee to thi s st ipu la tio n of facts w ith out 14 w ai vin g any

pr ior le ga l obj ec tio ns I hav e m ad e in this ca se . I und er stand 15 that a stipulatio n is an agreem ent that a certain fact is true. 16 Th e p art ie s g av e o pe ni ng st at em en ts ; t he st ip ul at io n o f fac ts was re adto th e jur y; 17 ex hib its w er e adm itt ed int o e vid en ce by

sti pul at ion ; the co urt gave ins tr uc tio ns to the 18 j ury ; the parties gave closing statem ents; the jury retire d to delib erate ; and the jury 19 the n r et

ur ne d it s gu ilty

ve rd ic ts i n op enc ourt. D ef en dant a ppe al s. 20 B. C au se N o. A -1 -C A -3 5085 21 { 8} In201 0 and 2 011 A PD D e t e ct ive s a ske d A PD f or en sic sc ie nti sts to an al y ze a nd 22 co m pare the D N A sa m

ple take n f

ro m D ef en dant pur suant to the D ec em be r 4, 201 0 23 search w arrant to foreign DNAsam ples retrieved fr om three other victim s of crim inal5

1 se xua l pe ne tr at ion w hic h oc curr ed in 1990 an d 1993
. T he A PD fo re nsic s ci entis ts 2 de te rm in edth atDefen da nt co ul d n ot be ex cl ud edas th e so ur ce o f th e fo rei gn DNA 3 sam ple taken from

the anal swa

b from K. H. (V ictim 2), and vaginal swabs from A. M. 4 (V ic tim 3) an d L
. O
. (V ic tim 4)
. A s a re sul t, D ef en dant w as c harg ed

in a subs eque nt 5 indictm ent with six counts of crim inal sexual penetration in the first degree , c ontrary 6 to Section 30-9-11(D), and kidn apping of V ictim 2, c ontrary

to Section 30-4-1; three 7 co unt s of

c ri m ina l se xua l pe ne tra tio n inthe f ir st d eg re e, c ontrary

to Se ct ion30- 9- 8 11 (D), an d o ne co un t o f ki dn ap pi ng of Vi ct im 3, co nt rary to Se ct io n 3 0- 4- 1; an d t wo 9 co unt s of

c ri m ina l se xua l pe ne tr at ionin the f ir st d eg re e, c ontrary

to Sect ion30- 9- 10 11( D ), a nd o ne c ount

of kidna ppi ng o f V ic tim

4, c ontrary

to Se ct ion30- 4- 1. 11 { 9} D ef

en dant the n e nte re d in to a c ondi tio na l pl ea

a nd d isp osi tio n a gr ee m en t 12 ap pr ov edby the di st ric t co ur t in whi ch Defen da nt ag reed to pl eadno co nt es t t o t wo 13 co unt s of

c ri m ina l se xua l pe ne tr at ionin the f ir st d eg re e of

V ic tim 2; two count s of 14 crim inal sexual penetration in the first degree of V ictim 3; and one coun t of crim inal 15 se xua l pe ne tr at ionin the f ir st deg re e an d on e co unt of kidna ppi ng o f V ic tim

4. T he 16 plea wa s conditi oned on De fendant reser ving his right to appeal: (1) w hether the A ct 17 is con sti tut ion al unde r the Fo urth A m en dm en t and the N ew Me xic o C onst itu tio n; ( 2) 18 whether the statute of lim itations wa s im properly applied to hi s case; and (3) w hether 19 the Dec em

ber 4, 2010 searc h war

rant wa s d ef

ec tive, as not being issu ed by an6

1 im pa rt i a l m a g i s t r a t e . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s e i s s u e s , t h e p a rt i e s a l s o a g r e e d t h ata ll 2 pe rt ine nt p le ad ing s, a rg um en ts and ru lin gs m ad e in cause no. D -2 02- CR -2 010- 0408 9 3 (cause no. 4089 ) w ere deem ed to be incorporated and bind ing in cause no. D -202-CR4 2013 -01243 (ca

use no. 1243), and the parties entere d into a stipu lation of f acts (S OF ) 5 w hic h D ef

en dant a gr ee d w oul d c onst itu te the unc ont es te d fa ct s on a ppe al
. D ef

en dant 6 ap pe al s. 7 II. Constit utionality of th e D NAIdent ification A ct 8 { 10} In 199 4, Co ngr es s e na ct ed le gis la tio n auth or iz ing the F ed er al Bure auof 9 In ve sti ga tio n ( FB I) to es ta bli sh an in de x of

D N A sa m

ple s. V iol en t C ri m e Co ntr ol and 10 L awE nf

or ce m en t A ct

of 199 4, Pu b. L
. N o. 103- 322, 108 St at . 179 6, 206 5 ( co dif ie d, 11 as am ended at 34 U. S. C. §§ 12 101 to 1264 3 (2012)). U nder this autho rity, t he FBI 12 cr eate d C O D IS , w hic h “ al low s S ta te a nd loc al fo re nsi cs la bor at or ie s to e xc hange a nd 13 com pare D NAprofiles electr onically in an attem

pt to lin k evidence from

cri m e scenes 14 fo r w hic h th er e ar e no suspe ct s to DN A sa m ple s of con vic te d off

en de rs on f

ile in the 15 syste m .” H.R. R ep . No. 1 06 -9 00 , pt . 1 at 8 (2 00 0) , re pri nte d in 20 00 U.S.C.C.A.N. 16 2323 , 242 4. 17 { 11} N ewMe xic o e le ct ed to part ic ipa te in CO D IS w iththe a dopt ion of the A ct in 18 19 97 . 19 97 N.M. La ws, ch . 1 05 . Th e Act pr ov id es fo r th e “ co ll ect io n, st or ag e, DNA 19 te sti ng, m ai nte nanc e an d c om pari son of

sa m ple s and DNA re co rd s f or f or en sic7

1 pur pose s” a nd i t sp ec if

ie s th at pr oc ed ur es “ sha ll m ee t or

e xc ee d th e pr ovi sio ns o f the 2 fe de ra l D N A I dent ific at ionA ct of 199 4 r eg ar din g m ini m

um standard s f

or state 3 part ic ipa tio n inCO D IS , inc lud ing m ini m um stand ar ds f

or the a cc ep tanc e, se curi ty 4 an d d is se m in at io n o f DNA reco rd s[ .] ” 1 99 7 N.M. Laws , ch. 1 05 , § 4 (B)( 1)
. 5 { 12} T he A ct

or igi na lly onl y re qui re d conv ic te d fe lon s to provi de D N A sa m ple s f or 6 inc lus ionin the D N A ide nti fi catio n sy ste m . 1997 N
. M. L aw s, ch
. 105, § 2( A ) (s ta tin g 7 that a purpose of t h e Ac t i s to “ establish a DN A identification sy stem for cover ed 8 offenders”) ; 1997 N. M. Laws, ch. 105, § 3(D) (defining a “ covered offe nder” to m ean 9 “ an y pe rs on c onvi ct ed

of af el ony of fe nse a s an a dul t un de r the Cr im ina l Code , the 10 Mot or V eh ic le Co de or

the c on st it ut ionof

N ewMe xic o or

c onvi ct ed

a s an a dul t 11 pur suant t o y outhf

ul o ff en de r or se ri ous y outhf

ul o ff en de r pr oc ee din gs un de r the 12 Ch ildre n’ s C ode [. ] ”) ; 19 97 N. M. L aw s, c h. 105 , § 6 (r equir ing “ co ve re d of fe nde rs ” 13 to pro vi de DNA sam

pl es ). 14 { 13} In 2006 the Ac t wa s expanded to require person s eighteen y ears of age or older 15 who were arres te d fo r th e co m m is si on of s pe ci fie d felo ny of fen se s to pro vi de a DNA 16 sa m ple to j ai l or det en tio n fa ci lity pe rs onne l “ uponboo kin g. ” 2006 N
. M. L aw s, c h. 17 104, § 1(A). The felonies specified we re sex offenses defined as felonies and all other 1 8 f e l o n i e s i n v o l v i n g d e a t h , g r e a tb o d i l y h arm , agg rav at ed ass au l t , k i d n ap p i n g , b u r g l a ry, 19 larc en y , r obbe ry , a ggr av at ed sta lki ng, use of a fi re ar

m or an ex plo siv e, or

avio la tio n8

1 of the A nti te rr or ism A ct . 2006 N
. M. L aw s, ch
. 104, 1( D )( 3) (b ). T he DNA of t he se 2 a rr e s t e e s w a s i n c l u d e di n t h e D N A i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ys t e m. Se e id. § 2(A) (stating that 3 ana ddi tio na l purp ose of the A ct is to es ta bl ish a D N A ide nti fi catio n sy ste m f or 4 indiv iduals arrested for the specif ied felonies). 5 { 14} In201 1, the L eg isl at ur e furthe r ex pande d th e A ct to re qui re a ny

pe rs on 6 ei ght ee n y ears of

a ge or old er “ w ho i s arr es te d f

or the c om m iss ionof

a fe lon y ” to 7 “ pr ovi de a D N A sa m

ple to j ai l or

de te nti on f

ac ili ty pe rs onne l up on b ooki ng. ” 2011 8 N
. M. L aw s, ch
. 84, § 1( A ). H ow ev er , the D N A sa m ple m ay onl y be inc lud ed

in the 9 DN A identificati o n s ystem if “ the arre st was m ade upon an arrest w arrant for a 10 felon y;” o r the defe ndant had “ appeared bef ore a j udge or m agistrate w ho m ade a 11 fi ndi ng tha t the re w as pr oba ble c au se f

or the a rr es t;” or

“ the de fe ndant p ost ed

bon d 12 or w as r el ea se d pr ior

to ap pe ar ing be fo re aj udge or m ag istrate a nd the n f

ai le d to 13 appear f

or a scheduled hear ing.” 2011 N. M. Laws, ch. 84, § 1(B)( 1)-(3). In all other 14 ca se s, the D N A sa m

ple co lle ct ed fr om a pe rs on arr es te d “ sha ll not be a na ly ze d and 15 shall be destroy ed.” 2011 N. M. L aw s, ch. 84, § 1 (B)
. 16 { 15} T his c as e co nc er ns the A ct

a s it e xis te d foll ow ing the 200 6 le gis la tio n, a nd i s 17 co dif ie d a s N MS A 197 8, §§ 2 9- 16- 1 to - 13 ( 2007 ). T he c ur re nt A ct inc lud es the 18 ch an ge s m ad e in 20 11 an d i s co di fie d a s Se ct io n 2 9- 16 -1 to -13 (20 13 ).9

1 A . D ef

en da nt ’s M ot ion s T o S up pr es s 2 { 16} D ef

en dant f ile d m oti ons to s uppr es s the D N A ev ide nc e co lle ct ed fr om him in 3 co nne ct ionw ith his ar

re st fo r dom es tic vio le nc e in 2008, ar gui ng tha t the se iz ur e of 4 his DNApursuant to the Ac t violated th e Fourth Am en d m en t to the United States 5 Constitu tion and Ar

ticle II, Sec tion 1 0 of the Ne w Me xico C o n s t itutio n. A fter a 6 he ar ing a t w hic h on ly l eg al ar gum en ts w er e pr es en te d, the district court denied 7 D ef en dant’ s m oti ons. 8 B. Stand ard of R eview 9 { 17} D ef

en dant d oe s no t c ont en d th at the A ct is unc onst itu tio na l a s a

ppl ie d ina ny 10 particular r espect. His ar gum ent is that the Act, which re q u i res all persons arr ested 11 fo r ce rt ai n c ri m es to pr ovi de aD N A sa m ple , is unc onst itutio na l on its fa ce . A s su ch , 12 D efend an t has the bur de n to de m onstrate that the re is no p ote nti al se t of f ac ts t o 13 whi ch th e Actcan be co ns ti tu ti on al ly app li ed
. Se e Sta te v
. M uri llo , 201 5- N MC A -0 46, 14 ¶ 4, 347 P
. 3d 2 84. I n ot he r w or ds, D ef en dant m ust de m onstrate that i n a ll of it s 15 ap plicatio ns, the A ct

is unc onst itu tio na l. Mo re ove r, be ca use w e pr es um e the A ct

is 16 valid, w e w ill uph old it against the constitu tional challenge “ unless we ar e satisfied 17 be y ond al l r ea sona

ble doubt tha t the L eg isl at ur e w en t ou tsi de the bounds fi xe d by the 18 Co ns ti tu ti on ” in it s en act m en t. Id . ( internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted).10

1 C. Four th A m endm ent Ar gum ents 2 { 18} D ef

en dant c ont en ds th at the se iz ur e of his D N A upo n hi s arr es t i n 20 08 3 v i o l at ed t h e Fo u rt h Amen d m en t t o t h e Un i t ed St at es Co n s t i tu t i o n . D ef en d an t ’s 4 ar gum en t w as re

j ec te d by the U nit ed St at es Su pr em e Co urt i n M

ary lan d v. Ki ng , 569 5 U.S. 43 5 (2 01 3)
. 6 { 19} In Ki ng , in 2003 am an co nc ea lin g hi s f ac e br oke int o aw om an ’ s ho m e in 7 Mary la nd , arm edwit h a gu n, an d ra pe d h er. Id

. at 4 39-40. Although the police wer e 8 unable to identify or apprehend the perpetrator, DN A of the perpetrator w as collected 9 fro m t h e v ic ti m . Id

. a t 44 0. I n 20 09 the de fe ndant w as a rr es te d and c harg ed w ith 10 “ first- and second-degree assaul t for m enacing a group of people with a shotgu n.” Id

. 11 T he de fe ndant’ s D N A wa s co lle ct ed via buc ca l sw ab in the c our se of the r out ine 12 book ing procedures in Mary land for “ serious offenses[.] ” Id

. The d efen da nt ’s DNA 13 m at ch edth e DNA tak en f r o m t h e vi ct im

in 20 03
. Id

. at 441. A lthou gh addit ional 14 D N A sa m

ple s we re ta ke n fr om the de fe ndant and use d aga ins t him at the r ap e tr ia l, 15 “ the re se em s to be no doubt that i t w as the D N A f

ro m the c he ek

sa m ple take n a t the 16 tim e he w as boo ke d in200 9 th at le d to hi s fir st havin g be enli nke d to the r ap e an d 17 charged w ith its comm issio n.” Id

. at 440. T he Court of Appeals of Mary land reversed 18 the de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion , de te rm ini ng tha t the 200 9 D N A sa m ple tak en from

the 19 defendant was an unlawful s earc h and seizure under the Fourth Am endm ent as “ an11

1 unreasonable search of the per son.” Id

. T he U
. S. Su pr em e Co urt r ev er se d, hol din g 2 tha t: 3 D N A ide nti fi catio n of a rr este es is a re as ona

ble se ar chthat c anbe 4 considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers m ake an 5 arre st sup ported by probable cause to holdfor a serious offense and they 6 br ing the sus pe ct to the statio n to be de ta ine d inc ust ody , takin g and 7 an al y zi ng a

c he ek sw ab of the ar

re ste e’ s D N A is, lik e fi nge rp ri nti ng and 8 phot ogr ap hin g, ale git im at e pol ic e book ing pr oc ed ur e tha t is r ea sona

ble 9 un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. 10 Id

. a t 46 5- 66. 11 { 20} The Court first determ ined that the adm inistration of a buccal swab, which 1 2 “ i n v o l v e s w i p i n g a s m a l l p i e c e o f f i l t e r p ap e r o r a c o t t o n s w ab s i m i l a r to aQ -t ip 13 ag ai nst

the ins ide c he ek

of a n in div idu al ’ s m ou th to col le ct som e ski n c el ls[ , ] ” is a 14 se ar chf

or pur pose s of the F ourth A m en dm ent. Id

. a t 44 4- 446 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n 15 m arks and citation om itted). “ It can be a greed that using a buccal swab on the inner 16 tis sue s of

ape rs on’ s c he ek

in or de r to obt ai n D N A sa m ple s is ase ar ch
. V irtua lly a ny 17 intru sio n in to the hum anbody , w ill w ork an inva sio n of che ri she d pe rs ona l se curi ty 18 that is sub

j ect to constitut ional scrutiny [. ] ” Id

. at 446 ( al te ratio n, intern al quo ta tio n 19 m ar ks, a nd c itatio ns o m itt ed ); see Sc hm er be r v. Ca lif orni a , 384 U .S
. 757, 767 (196 6); 20 se e als o M

iss ouriv . M

cN ee ly , 569 U
. S. 141, 148 (2 013) (h old ing tha t the ta kin g of 21 blo od t o de te rm ine a lc ohol c ont en t i n c onne ct ionw itha rr es t f or dr ivi ng unde r the 22 inf lue nc e of li quor is a se ar chund er

the F ourth A m en dm en t) ; Sk inn er v . R y. L abor12

1 Ex ecs’ A ss’n , 489 U. S. 602, 616-18 (19 89) (holdin g that adm inist ra t i on of a 2 “ br eatha ly ze r te st, w hic h ge ne ra lly re qui re s the pr oduc tio n of a lve olar or

‘ de ep lun g’ 3 br eath f

or ch em ica l ana ly sis ” is a se ar chund er

the F ourth A m en dm en t) ; Cupp v. 4 M urph y , 412 U
. S. 291, 295 (1 973) (h old ing that sc ra pin g of a n arr es te e’ s f

ing er na ils 5 to obt ain trace evidence is a sear ch under the Fourth Am endm ent). 6 { 21} H ow ev er , “ [t ] o say that the F ourth A m en dm en t ap pli es he re is the be gin nin g 7 poin t, not th e end of the analy sis.” Ki ng , 569 U
. S. at 446

. “ R e a s o n ab l e n e s s i s a l w a ys 8 the tou ch sto ne of

F ourth A m en dm en t ana ly sis , a nd r ea sona ble ne ss i s ge ne ra lly 9 as se sse d by

c ar ef ull y w ei ghi ng the na tur e an d qu al ity of the intr usi on o n th e 10 indiv idual’s F ourth Am endm ent interests against the im portance of the governm ental 11 interests alleged to justify the intrusio n.” Cty. of Los Angeles v. Me ndez , 137 S. Ct
. 12 1539 , 1546 (2 017) ( al te ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio ns o m itt ed ). T hus, 13 Ki ng pr oc ee de d by

weig hin g “ the pr om oti on o f le git im at e gove rn m en ta l i nte re sts 14 ag ai nst

the de gr ee to w hic h th e se ar chintru de s up on an i ndi vid ua l’ s pr iva cy . ” 569 15 U.S. at 4 36 , 44 8 (a lt erat io n, i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. 16 { 22} The U .S . S uprem e Court re cognized that various gove rnm ental interests are 17 legitim ately

served by collecting the DN A of an arr estee for a “ serious off ense” under 18 Mary la nd ’s st atut e dur in g a rou ti ne bo ok in g p ro ced ur e. Id

. a t 44 8. “ T he le git im ate 19 gove rn m en t i nte re st s er ve d by the Mary land D N A Co lle ct ionA ct is one tha t i s w el l13

1 es ta bli she d: the ne ed

f or lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs in a sa fe a nd a cc ur at e w ay to 2 process and identify the persons and poss essions they m ust take into custody .” Id

. at 3 449. This interest is best understoo d as having its origin in the lin ea g e o f cases 4 pe rt ai nin g to the “ ‘ ro uti ne a dm ini str at ive pr oc ed ur es a t a pol ic e sta tio n ho use 5 inc ide nt t o b oo ki ng an d j ai lin g th e sus pe ct ’ ” in w hic h “ ‘ the lawis in the a ct of 6 subjecting t h e b o d y o f the ac cused to its p hy sical dom inion .’ ” Id

. a t 44 9- 50 7 (a lte ratio n om itted ) (quot ing Il lin ois v . L afa ye tte , 462 U
. S. 640 , 643 ( 1983 ), a nd 8 quot ing Pe ople v. C

hiag les , 23 7 N.Y. 19 3, 1 97 (19 23 ) (Ca rd oz o, J .)). 9 { 23} Fi rs t, t hi s m ean s th at “ ‘ [i ] n e ve ry

c ri m ina l c as e, it

is known and m

ust be 10 known who has been arre sted and who is being tried.’ ” Ki ng , 569 U
. S. a t 45 0 11 (q uot ing Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Hum bold t Cty. , 5 4 2 U
. S
. 177 , 12 191 (2 004)
. D N A te sti ng ide nti fi es w ith“ ne ar c er ta inty ” the ide nti ty

of ape rs on b y 13 an al y zi ng “ no nc od in g” reg io ns of DNA m at eri al in ch ro m os om es . Ki ng , 569 U .S . at 14 442-43 . “ [F] or en s i c analy sis focuses on ‘ repeate d DN A sequences sca ttered 1 5 thr o u g h o u t t h e h u m a n g e n o m e , ’ kn o w n a s ‘ s h o rt t a n d e m r e p e a t s ’ ( S T R s )
. T he 16 al te rn at ive pos sib ili tie s f or the siz e an d f

re que nc y of the se ST Rs a t any

giv enpoi nt 17 al ong a str an d of

D N A a re kno w n a s ‘ al le le s, ’ a nd m ul ti ple a lle le s are a na ly ze d in 18 order to e nsure that a DN A profile m atches only one indiv idual.” Id
. a t 44 3 ( quot ing 19 J. Butler, F

unda m en tal

s of For ensic D

NA T yp ing 25, 147-148 (2009) (hereinafte r14

1 Bu tle r) ). T he “ nonc odi ng” re gio ns of the D N A that are te ste d are not kno w n to ha ve 2 an y a sso ci at ion with age ne tic dis ea se , ge ne tic tr ai ts, or a ny oth er ge ne tic 3 p r e d is po si ti on , and th e res ul ts are t he refo re o nl y us efu l fo r te st in g h um an id en ti t y. 4 Ki ng , 569 U. S. at 445 (quoti ng Butler 279). 5 { 24} T hus, obt ai nin g an arr es te e’ s DNA fu rthe rs the gov er nm en t’ s in te re st i n 6 c o rr e c t l y i d e n t i f

yi n g t h e p e r s o n a rr e s t e d
. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me 7 Court, the use of D NAfor identification purpos es “ represe nts an im portant advance 8 in the te chniqu es used by lawenforce m ent to serve legitim ate police concerns for as 9 l o n g as t h er e h av e b ee n arre s t s [. ]” Ki ng , 569 U. S. at 456. T he m ost direc t “ histo rical 10 analogue” to DN A identification technolog y is fingerpri n t i ng technol ogy , which 11 fe de ra l pr ec ed en t ha s lo ng h el d to be “ a na tur al pa rt of ‘ the a dm ini str at ive ste ps 12 incident to arre st.’ ” Id

. a t 43 7 ( quot ing Ct

y. O f R iv er sid e v. M cL augh lin , 500 U
. S. 44, 13 58 ( 1991 )) ; se e also U nit ed Sta tes v. Ke lly , 55 F. 2d 67, 69- 70 ( 2d C ir
. 193 2) ( hol din g 14 tha t r out ine f

ing er pr int ing dur ing boo kin g of a n arr es te e did

not vio la te the F ourth 15 A m en dm en t: “ [w]e fin d no gr ound in re as on o r au tho ri ty

f or int er fe ri ng w itha 16 m ethod of

ide nti fy ing pe rs ons ch ar ge d w ithc ri m e w hi ch has no wbe co m e w ide ly 17 known and f

re que ntl y pr ac tic ed ”) ; Smith v. United States , 324 F. 2d 87 9, 882 (D. C. 18 Ci r. 196 3) ( sta tin g th at it is “ el em en tary

that a pe rs on i n law fu l c ust od y m ay be 19 re qui re d to sub m it to p hot ogr ap hin g, a nd f ing erpr int ing , a s part

of r out ine15

1 id en ti fic at io n p ro ces se s” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). 2 { 25} The U. S. Suprem e Cou rt add ed that “ [a] susp ect’ s crim inal histo ry is a critical 3 pa rt of hi s id en ti ty th at of fic ers sh ou ld kn ow when pr oc es si ng hi m fo rd e t en ti on .” 4 Ki ng , 569 U. S. at 450. For e xam ple, “ [i] t i s a we l l rec ogni zed aspect of c rim inal 5 co nduc t tha t the pe rp etrator w ill ta ke unus ua l ste ps to conc ea l not on ly his c ondu ct , 6 but a lso his ide nti ty [, ] ” inc lud ing but not li m ite d to na m e ch an ge s and ch ange s to 7 ph y si cal feat ur es . Id

. (internal q uotatio n m arks and citation om itted). “ In this respect 8 the use of D N A fo r ide nti fi catio n is no d if fe re nt than m at ch ing a n arr es te e’ s f ac e to 9 a wan te d p os te r of

a pr ev io us ly uni de nt ifi edsu sp ect ; o r m at ch in g t at to os t o kn own 10 gang s ym

bol s to r ev ea l a

c ri m ina l a ff

ili at ion ; or

m at ch ing the a rr es te e’ s f ing er pr int s 11 to tho se rec overed fr o m a crim e scene. ” Id

. a t 45 1. O r in o the r w or ds, “ D N A is 12 [m erely ] another m etric of identification us ed to connect [an] arr estee w ith his or her 1 3 publ ic p e r s o n a , a s r e f l e c t e d i n r e c o r d s o f h i s o r h e r a c t i o n s t h a t a r e a v a i l ab le to the 14 police.” Id

. 15 { 26} Se co nd, “ law e nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs be ar

ar es pons ibi lity

f or e nsur ing that the 16 cu sto dy

of a n arr es te e doe s no t c re at e inor din at e ri sks f or f ac ili ty sta ff , f or the 17 ex is ti ng de ta in ee po pu la ti on , a nd fo r a n ew de ta in ee.” I d. a t 45 2 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n 18 m arks and citation om itted). S pecifically , D NA identification can p rovide “ untaint ed 19 inform ation” concerning whether, for exam ple, an arre stee o r detainee has a history16

1 of vi ol en ce o r m en ta l d is or de r. Id

. at 4 52
. 2 { 27} T hir d, “ loo kin g f or w ar d to f

uture sta ge s of cri m ina l pr ose cu tio n, the 3 Governm ent has a su bstantial interest in ensuring that persons accused of crim es are 4 available for tr ials.” Id

. ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n mark s a n dc i t a t i o no mi t t e d )
. S p e c i f i c a l l y, 5 “ [a ] pe rs on wh o is arre st ed f or one of fe nse but kno w s th at

he ha s y et

to an sw er

f or 6 som e past crim e m ay

be m ore inclined to flee the instant ch ar g es , lest contin ued 7 co nt act wit h th e cri m in al jus ti ce sy st em ex po se on e orm or e o th er s eri ou s o ffen se s.” 8 Id

. a t 453. Si m ilarl y , “ ana rr es te e’ s pa st c ondu ct is es se nti al to ana sse ssm en t of the 9 dange r he pos es to the pub lic , ” w hic h w ill inf orm the de te rm ina tio n of

w hethe r the 10 in di vi du al sh ou ld be rel eas edon ba il
. Id

. 11 { 28} Fi na lly , the U
. S. S upr em e Co urt sa id, “ in the int er es ts o f j ust ic e, the 12 ide nti fi catio n of

a n a rres te e as the pe rp et rator of som e he ino us c ri m e m ay ha ve the 13 sa lu ta ry effe ct of free in g a pe rs on wro ng fu ll y im pr is on edforth e sa m e o ffen se .” I d. 14 at 455
. 15 { 29} Inc on si de ring an ar re ste e’ s pr iva cy

int er es ts, the Co urt r ea sone d th at “ the 16 intrusio n o f a ch ee k swab to obtain a DN A sam ple is a m inim al one.” Id

. at 4 61 . A 17 buccal swa

b, w hich consis ts of a “ gentle rub a long the insid e of the chee k [that] does 18 not br eak th e ski n, a nd i t i nvol ve s vi rt ua lly no r isk , tr au m a, or pa in” is a “ m ini m al ” 1 9 a n d“b r i e f

” i n t r u s i o n o f a n a rr e s t e e ’s p e r s o n a s c o mp a r e d t o “i n v a s i v e s u r g e ry” o r “a17

1 se ar chof

the a rr es te e’ s ho m e, ” an d “ doe s no t i nc re as e the ind ign ity a lr ea dy a tte ndant 2 t o norm al incidents of arrest. ” Id

. a t4 6 3
- 6 4 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a n dc i t a t i on 3 om itt ed ). A ddi tio na lly , “ [t ] he e xpe ct at ion s of pr iva cy of a n in div idual take n in to 4 police custod y ‘necessar ily are of a dim inish ed scope[,] ’ ” id. a t 46 2 ( al te ratio n 5 om itt ed ) (quot ing B el l v

. W olf ish , 441 U. S. 520, 557 (197 9 )) , and searches of a 6 “ de ta ine e’s pe rs on w he n he is book ed int o c ust ody

m ay ‘ inv olv e a re la tiv el y 7 extensive explo ration[.] ’ ” Ki ng , 569 U
. S. a t 46 2 ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . R obi nson , 8 41 4 U.S. 2 18 , 22 7 (1 97 3) , supe rse de d bysta tut e on o the r gr ound s as re co gni

ze d by 9 Co m m onw ea lth v. P ie rre , 72 M as s. App. Ct
. 580 , 893 N
. E
. 2d 3 78 ( 2008 )) ; se e als o 10 F lor en cev . B d. of Ch ose n F re eh old er s of Ct y. of B url ing ton , 566 U
. S. 318 , 334 11 (2012) (stating th at booki ng or i ntake procedures, includ ing requiring som e detainees 12 to “ lift their genitals or cough in a squatting positi on” have been held consti tutio nal). 13 { 30} Ba lanc ing the re spe ct ive int er es ts, the Co urt c onc lud ed that “ [i ] n li ght

of the 14 co nte xt o f a va lid ar

re st s uppo rt ed

by pr oba ble c au se [ the de fe ndant’ s] e xpe ct at ion s 15 of privacy we re no t offended b y the m inor intrusio n of a brief swab of his cheeks. By 16 co ntr as t, that sam e co nt ex t of a rr es t gi ve s r ise to sig nif ic an t st at e int er es ts i n 17 ide nti fy ing [ the de fe ndant] not onl y so tha t the pr ope r na m e can be at ta ched to his 18 ch ar ge s bu t a lso so tha t the c ri m ina l j ust ic e sy ste m c anm ak e inf

orm ed de ci sio ns 19 concerning pretrial custody .” Ki ng , 569 U
. S. a t 46 5.18

1 { 31} D e f

e n d a n tp o i n t s o u tt h a tu n d e r t h e M a ry l a n ds t a tu t e c o n s t r u e din K in g, the 2 DN A sam

ple m ay not b e t es t ed o r placed in a database until after a j udicial officer 3 m ak es apro ba bl e cause de te rm ina tio n a t arr ai gnm en t t o de ta in an arr es te e on a 4 qu a l i f yi n g “s e r i o u s o f

f e n s e ” ( i
. e . , a c r i me o f v i o l e n c e o r a n a t t e mp tt o c o mmi tac r i me 5 of vio le nc e or

bur glary or a n a tte m pt to com m it bur glary ); an d th e Mary land s ta tut e 6 pr ovi de s f

or auto m at ic ex pu ng em en t i f al l the qua lif y ing c harg es a re de em ed to be 7 unsu pported b y p ro b ab l e cause, the crim inal action does n ot result in a crim inal 8 convictio n, the conviction is finally reverse d or v acated, or “ the indiv idual is granted 9 an u n co n ditio nal pardon.” Ki ng , 569 U
. S. a t 44 3- 44 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 10 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). O n th e oth er hand, unde r the 200 6 e xpansi on and c ur re nt v er sio n 11 of the Ac t, a DN A sam ple is tested and placed in COD IS upon arre st, and the burden 12 of se ek ing e xpun ge m en t is pla ce d onthe a rr es te e. D ef en dant a sse rt s, w ith out 1 3 ex p l ai n i n g wh y o r c i t i n g t o s u p p o rt i n g au th o ri t i es , t h at as a r es u l t , Ne w M ex i co ’s 14 sta tut or

y sc hem e vi ol at es the F ourth A m en dm en t. W e do n ot c onsi de r the se 15 dis tin ct ion s as re qui ri ng us to co nc lud e tha t the se iz ur e of D ef en dant’ s D N A upo n hi s 16 arre st in 20 08 vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n. See 17 Sta te v. G ue rra , 2012 -N MS C- 014, ¶ 21, 278 P. 3d 1031 (e xpl ai nin g that the appe llate 18 co ur ts are u nd er n o o bl ig at io n t o re vi ew un cl ear o r un de ve lo pe d a rg um en ts ). 19 { 32} A nti ci pa tin g th is r es ult , D ef en dant s ta te s, “ If

thi s C ourt do es not

f ind that the19

1 differe nces suppo rt an oppos i t e r e su l t under Ki ng , how ev er , [ D ef en dant] a sks that this 2 Court decide the m atter under Article II, Section 10 [ of th e N ew Me x i co 3 Co nst itu tio n.]” W e the re fo re tur n to D ef en dant’ s arg um en t tha t the se iz ur e of his 4 DNA was i n v io la ti on of t he New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. 5 D. Ne w Mexico C onstitut ion Ar gum ents 6 { 33} D ef

en dant c o n t e n d s th at

w e shou ld d ive rg e fr om

f ed er al pr ec ed en t and h old the 7 seizure of his D NAwa s uncons titutio nal under Article II , Se ct ion 10 of the N ew 8 Me xic o C onst itu tio n. T he part ie s do not dis put e tha t D ef

en dant h as pr ope rl y 9 pr es erv edth is is su e to be arg ue d o n app eal
. Se e Stat e v. Ke te lso n , 201 1- N MS C- 023, 10 ¶¶ 10- 11, 150 N
. M. 137 , 257 P .3d 957 ( sta tin g th at “ a de fe ndant m

ust pr ope rl y 11 pr es er ve his ar gum en t unde r the sta te co nst itu tio n” a nd s ettin g f orth the r equir em en ts 12 for preser

vation). 13 { 34} A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 of the N ewMe xic o Co nst itu tio n is sim ilar to the F ourth 14 Am endm ent. It provides: “ The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, hom es 15 an d e ff

ec ts, f ro m unr ea sona

ble se ar ch es a nd s ei zure s, a nd n o w ar rant to s earc h any 16 pla ce , or

se iz e an y

pe rs on o r thi ng, shall iss ue w ith out de sc ri bin g th e pla ce to be 17 se ar ch ed , or

the pe rs ons or

thi ngs to b e se iz ed , nor w ith out aw ri tte n sh ow ing of 18 pr ob ab le cau se , supp or te d b y oa th or a ffi rm at io n.” 19 { 35} W e apply

the interstitial approach to determ ine if o ur s tate provision provides20

1 br oa de r pr ote ct ionthan th e Fo urth A m en dm en t b ecause b othpr ovi sio ns p ro vid e 2 o v e r l ap p i n g p r o t e c t i o n s a g a i n s tu n r e a s o n ab l e s e a r c h e s a n ds e i zu re s. Se e Ke te lso n , 3 2011 -N MS C- 023, ¶

10. Un d e r

th e i n t er sti tia l a

ppr oa ch , “ w e fi rs t c onsi de r w he the r the 4 ri g h tb ei n g as s er t ed i s p ro t ec t ed u n d ert h e f ed er al co n s t i tu tion.” Id

. ( i n t e r n a l qu ota tio n 5 m arks and citation om itted). “ If the r ight is protected by the federa l constitu tion, then 6 t he s t a t e c on st i tut i on a l c l a i m i s no tr e a c hed.” Id

. If the r igh t i s no t pr ote ct ed by the 7 federa l constitu tion, “ [the appellate courts] next consid er w hether the N ewMexico 8 Co nst it u t i o np ro vid es br oa de r pr ote ct ion , a nd [ the appe llate c ourts] m ay div er ge f ro m 9 federa l precedent for three rea sons : a flaw ed feder al analy sis, structural diffe rences 10 betwee n state and federa l governm en t , o r d istinctiv e state char acter istics.” Id
. 11 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). H ere, we have alre ady concluded that 1 2 t h e r i g h t D ef

en d an tas s er t s i s n o tp ro t ec t ed u n d ert h e F o u rt h Am en d m en t . We 13 therefore proceed to consider whether Article I I , S ection 10 affords De fendant greater 14 ri ght s th anthe F ourth A m en dm en t. 15 { 36} D ef

en dant m ak es no ar gum en t tha t w e shou ld d ive rg e fr om f ed er al pr ec ed en t 16 due to str

uc tur al dif

fe re nc es be tw ee n st at e an d f ed er al g o v e r

n m e n t , o r dis tin ct ive state 1 7 ch ar ac t er i s t i cs . De fe n d an td o es co n t en d , t h at fo r t h e r ea s o n s s t at ed i n J u s t i ce Sc al i a’s 18 dis se nt i n Ki ng , the a na ly sis a nd c onc lus ionr ea ch ed by the m aj or ity

in Ki ng is 19 fl aw ed
. D ef

en dant a lso poi nts to P eo

ple v . B uza , 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753 (2014), w hich21

1 agreed w ith the Ki ng dis se nt an d he ld tha t Ca lif or nia ’ s D N A co lle ct ionvio la te s th e 2 California constitutio n. How ever, the California Suprem e Court reverse d the Court 3 o f Ap p e a l s in P eo

ple v . B uza , 413 P
. 3d 1 132 (2 018)
. F ina lly , D ef en dant a sks us t o 4 co nsi de r vari ous lawr ev ie wa rt ic le s, but f ai ls t o arg ue w hy

the y sho ul d lea d us to 5 co nc lud e tha t the se ar ch of D ef en dant’ s DN A vio la te s the N ew Me xic o C onst itu tio n. 6 W e the re fo re li m it our a na ly sis to w he the r the S ca lia dis se nt i n Ki ng d emo n s trates 7 tha t w e shou ld g rant g re at er pr ote ct ionto D ef

en dant und er A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 8 be ca use the m aj or ity ’ s ana ly sis in Ki ng is f law ed
. 9 { 37} To place De fendant’ s argum ent in perspective, w e first r evie w how CO DI S 10 ope rate s. T he CO D IS da ta ba se is co m

pose d of pr of ile s of n on co din g part s of the 11 D N A that do not

rev ea l ge ne tic tr ai ts, and d o no t, a t pr es en t, r ev ea l i nf orm at ion 12 be y on d i de nt ifi cat io n. Ki ng , 56 9 U.S. at 44 5, 4 64
. See B oroia n v. Mueller , 616 F
. 3d 1 3 60, 6 6 ( 1 s t C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e r e s u l t i n g D N A p r o f i l e p r o v i d e s a t y

p e of 14 “ ge ne tic f

in ge rp ri nt, w hic h un iqu el y ide nti fi es a n in div idu al ” but no b as is “ fo r 1 5 de t e rm i n i n g o r i n f

e rr i n g a n yt h i n g e l s e ab o u t t h e p e r s o n ” ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m arks 16 an d c itatio n om itt ed )) ; U nit ed Sta tes v. Ki nc ade , 379 F. 3d 8 13, 818 ( 9thCi r. 200 4) 17 (s ta tin g th at

non -g en ic str et ch es of D N A ar e pur pose ly se le ct ed fo r an al y sis “ be ca use 18 they are not associated with any known phy sical or m edical chara cteristics” (inter nal 19 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om it ted) ). T he a na ly sis onl y ge ne rate s “ a uni que22

1 identify ing nu m

ber against which futu re sam ples m ay be m atched.” Ki ng , 569 U. S. 2 at 464
. 3 { 38} CO D IS , a cc or din g to Ki ng , c onnects l ab o ra tories at the local, and state level 4 of all “ 50 S tates and a num ber of federa l agencies.” 569 U .S . at 444-45 . T he sy stem 5 “ collects DN A profiles provided by local laboratories taken from arr estees, convicted 6 offenders, and forensic evidence found at crim e scen es .” Id . at 445. The C OD IS 7 da taba se co ns is ts of t wo d is ti nc t co ll ect io ns . Id . at 472. One consi sts of DNAsam ples 8 taken from

known arre stees or convicts, and the secon d co n sists o f D NAsam ples 9 fro m un so lv edcri m e sc en es . Se e id. a t 47 3. T he CO D IS sy ste m w orks b y c he ck ing 10 whether any

of the sam

ples from unsol ved crim e scenes m at ch an y of the sam ples 11 fr om kno w n arr es te es and c onvi ct s. Se e id. 12 { 39} T h e c e n t r a l a r g u m e n t m a d e b y J u s t i c e S c a l i a ’ s d i s se nt i n Ki ng is tha t the 13 prim ary

purpose of C OD IS is to obtain known sam ples of DN A from arre stees so they 14 can th enbe c om

pare d to unkn ow n sam

ple s of DN A obt ai ne d fr om uns olv ed c ri m es , 15 and thereby

determ ine i f a known ar restee w as involv ed in the com m issio n of an 16 u n s ol ve d c rime. Se e id

. a t4 7 2
- 7 5 , 4 8 0
. T h u s , t h e d i s s e n tc o n t e n d s , t h e m a j o r i ty 17 opin ion allows the searching of an arre stee’ s DN A f or evidence of a crim e w hen there 18 is no ba si s fo r be li ev in g t ha t t he arres te e co m m it te d a n u ns ol ve d c rime. Se e id. a t 46 6. 19 Beca use the Fourth Am endm e nt ’ s pr oh ibitio n against searching a person for evidence23

1 of ac ri m e w he n th er e is n o ba sis f or be lie vin g th e pe rs on i s gu il ty o f the c ri m e is 2 “ categorical and without ex cept ion” the diss ent concludes th at the searc h of an 3 arre st ee fo r a DNA sam pl e is un co ns ti tu ti on al
. Id

. “ [S] uspicio nless searches ar e never 4 allowed if their principle e nd is ordinary crim e-solving [, ] ” id
. at

469 , a nd C O D IS is 5 be in g u se d fo r no th in g m or e th an in ve st ig at in g o rd in ary cri m in al wron gd oi ng . Id . at 6 46 8, 4 72 -4 76
. 7 { 40} Justi ce Scalia’ s dissent further argues that the DN A search of an arrestee “ had 8 no th in g t o d o” wit h e st ab li sh in g i de nt it y . Ki ng , 569 U.S. a t 47 4. I n Ki ng , the 9 defendant’ s identitywa s known, as the docket for the origin al crim inal charges listed 10 hi s fu ll na m e, race , sex , he ig ht , da te of b irt h, an d a dd res s. Id . at 473-74 . Mor eover, 11 the defendant’ s DNA wa s n o t sent to the laboratory for testing until nearly

three 12 m onths a ft er

his a rr es t, a nd the la

b te sts w er e not av ai la

ble fo r se ve ra l m or e w ee ks, 13 w he n th e re sul ts w er e en te re d in to M ar y land’ s D N A da ta

ba se . Id
. at 4 72. Bail had 14 al re ady be en se t, the de fe ndant had en ga ge d indis co ve ry , a nd h e re que ste d aspe edy 15 tri al
. Id
. F our m onths af te r the de fe ndant’ s ar

re st, an d a ft er

the de fe ndant’ s id en tity 16 w as a lr ea dy

kno w n, CO D IS r et

ur ne d th e m at ch of the de fe ndant’ s known D N A w ith 17 th e DNA fro m

th e u ns ol ve d 2 00 3 ra pe . Se e id. a t 44 1. 18 { 41} W e now co n s i d er whether w e should expand privacy rights of NewMexico24

1 ar re ste es be y ond tho se re co gni ze d un de r the F ourth A m en dm en t i n Ki ng . “ The key 2 inquir y und er A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 is re as onabl en es s[ , ] ” an d “ re as ona ble ne ss 3 de pe nds on the ba lanc e be tw ee n th e publ ic interest a nd the ind ivi dua l’ s in te re st i n 4 f r e e do m f r om p ol i c e i ntr

us i onupo n pe r so na l l i be rty .” Kete lso n , 201 1- N MS C- 023, 5 ¶ 20. W e theref

ore begin by exam ining the publ ic interest as expressed in the stated 6 purpos es of the Ac t. Section 29-16-2, as w as in effe ct in 2007 , w ithou t being further 7 am en de d st at es : 8 T he pur

pose of the A ct is to: 9 A
. es ta

bli sh a D N A ide nti fi catio n sy ste m f or c ove re d of

fe nde rs a nd 1 0 p e r s o n s r e qu i r e d t o p r o v i d e a D N A s a m p l e p u r s u a n tto the 11 pr ovi sio ns o f Se ct ion1 .
. . of thi s 2006 ac t [N MS A 1978 , § 29 -3
- 1 2 1 0 (2 0 0 7 )]; 13 B. facilitate t h e u se of D NArec ords by local, state and federa l law 14 en fo rc em en t a ge nc ie s inthe : 15 (1 ) ide nti fi catio n, de te ct ionor e xc lus ionof

pe rs ons in 16 co nne ct ionw ithc ri m ina l i nve sti ga tio ns; a nd 1 7 ( 2 ) r e g i s t r a t i o n o f s e x o f f e n d e r s r e qu i r e dt o r e g i s t e r p u r sua nt 18 to the pr ovi sions o f the S ex O ff en de r Re gis tr at iona nd 19 Not ifi cat io n Act
. . . ; 20 C. es ta

bli sh a m iss ing pe rs ons D N A ide nti fi catio n sy ste m c onsi sti ng 21 of

the f oll ow ing D N A ind ex es : 22 (1 ) uni de nti fi ed pe rs ons; 23 (2 ) uni de nti fi ed hum anr em ai ns; a nd25

1 (3 ) re la tiv es of , or kno w n r ef

er en ce s am

ple s f ro m , m iss ing 2 pe rs ons; a nd 3 D. facilitate the u s e o f D NArec ords by local, state and federa l law 4 en fo rc em en t a ge nc ie s and the state m edic al inv es tig at or in the 5 ide nti fi catio n and l oc at ionof m iss ing a nd unid en tif

ie d pe rs ons or 6 hu m an rem ai ns . 7 { 42} T he f

ir st stat ed pu rpose of

the A ct is to “ es ta

bli sh a D N A ide nti fi catio n” f

or 8 two classes of per sons . 2006 N. M. L aw s, ch. 104, § 2(A) . “ [C] overed offenders” are 9 pe rs ons co nvi ct ed

of f el oni es , a nd n o arg um en t i s m ad e he re that a c onvi ct ed

f el on 10 cannot

be c onst itu tio na lly

r equir ed to pr ovi de aD N A sa m pl e fo r ide nti fi catio n 11 pu rp os es . See 200 6 N
. M. L aw s, c h. 104 , § 2( A ). W ha t is be fo re us are the se co nd 12 cate gor

y of pe rs ons re qui re d to pr ovi de a D N A sa m ple in t he DNA ide nti fi catio n 13 syste m . As we h av e p oi nt edou t ab ov e, th e “ pe rs on s r e q u i r e d t o p ro vi de a DNA 14 sam ple” are persons arre s t ed fo r sex offe nses defined as felonies, and all other 15 fe lo ni es inv olv ing “ de ath, gr eat bo dil y harm , a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult , kidna

ppi ng, 16 burglary , larceny , r obbery , a ggravated stalking , use of a fir earm or an explosive or a 1 7 v i o l a t i o n p u r s u a n tt o t h e A n t i t e rr o r i s m A c t [
. ] ” 2 0 0 6 N
. M
. L a w s , c h
. 104 , 18 § 1 (D)(3 )(a) -(b ). W e h erei n re fer t o s uc h p ers on s as arre st ees . 19 { 43} It is fundam ental that the State has a right to id entify all persons it has arrested 20 fo r co m

m it ti ng a fel on y . See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev. , H

umboldt Cty. , 21 542 U.S . at 191 (“ In ev er y c rim inal case, it is kno wn and m ust be kno wn w ho has26

1 be ena rr es te d and w ho i s be ing tr ie d. ”)
. D ef en dant m ak es no arg um en t tha t a pe rs on 2 ar re ste d f or af el ony ha s agr eate r pr iva cy ri ght to his or he r ide nti fy ing inf orm at ion 3 under the NewMexico Constitu tion th an one does u n d er t h e U nited States 4 Constitu tion, nor is any argum ent m ade that the m ethod for obtaini ng Def en d an t ’s 5 D N A vio la te d the N ew Me xic o C onst itu tio n. W e ag re e w ith Ki ng tha t w ei ghi ng the 6 la w enf

or cem en t n eedag ai ns t t he m in im al ly inv as iv e mea ns forsec ur in g t he DNA 7 sa m ple f ro m Defen da nt ’ s c he ek

w ei ghs in f

av or of c onc lud ing that the se ar chis 8 re as on ab le und er

A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10
. I n a ddi tio n, no arg um en t i s m ad e w hy the 9 St at e shou ld b e de pr ive d, c onst itu tio na lly , f rom usi ng the m ost

a cc ur at e m ethod 10 av ai la ble f or ide ntify ing pe rs ons ar

re ste d onf

el ony c harg es . A s our dis cu ssi on o f 11 Ki ng ill ustrate s, D N A te sti ng ide nti fi es w ith“ ne ar c er ta inty ” a pe rs on’ s id en tity , a nd 12 it doe s so by

te sti ng o nly

the “ nonc odi ng” r eg ion s of the D N A str an d th at a re not 13 known to be as soc ia te d w ith an y ge ne tic dis ea se or ge ne tic tr ai ts. 569 U
. S. a t 44 2- 43. 14 T he te sts a re the re fo re onl y use fu l for hum an ide nti fi catio n. Fi na lly , no arg um en t i s 15 m ad e th at the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n a ff or ds s pe ci fi c pr ote ct ionon h owthe 16 ide nti fy ing D N A inf

orm at ionm ay

be sto re d. 17 { 44} Rather, De fendant’ s argum ent seem s centered on the A cts’ s second pu rpose, 18 w hic h is to “ fa ci lit at e the use ” of the D N A re co rd s inthe “ ide nti fi catio n, de te ct ionor 19 ex cl usi on o f pe rs ons in con nect ionw ithc ri m ina l i nve sti ga tio ns[
. ] ” Se ct ion29- 16-27

1 2( B) (1 ). T his state d purp ose , D ef en dant con te nds, de m onstrate s that the pur pose f or 2 col l ec t i n g DN A is to use the D NAcollected fr om arr estees to investig ate w hether 3 they have comm itted other, un known crim es when there is n o reason to believe they 4 co m m itt ed a ny oth er c ri m es . Whil e thi s use doe s no t vi ola te the F ourth A m en dm en t 5 under Ki ng , D ef

en dant c ont en ds we sho uld c onc lud e it vio la te s A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 6 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. W e ar e not pe rs ua de d. 7 { 45} The arg um en t ov erl oo ks th e fact th atth e St at e h as ob ta in edan arres te e’s DNA 8 in a m an ne r tha t i s both law fu l an d co nsi ste nt w ith the N ew Me xic o Co nst itu tio n. T he 9 real co m

pl ai nt is th atot he r in fo rm at io n, l awfu ll y in th e St at e’s po ss es si on —DNA 10 fro m un so lv ed c rime scen es —ca n b e co m pa redto th e arr es te e’s kn own DNA. A 11 defendant has no cons titutio nally protected privacy

interest in DN A he or she leaves 12 at a past or f

uture crim e scene, and a defendant has no constit ution ally protected 13 int er es t i n th e D N A use d f or ide nti ficat io n at boo kin g up on arr es t. U nde r the se 14 ci rc um stanc es , w e do n ot p er ce ive a co nst itu tio na l vi ola tio n. O bvi ousl y , the 15 co m pari son of known D N A , obt ai ne d at book ing , w ith unkn ow n D N A , se iz ed f ro m 16 unso lve d c ri m e sc en es , is ex ac tly the sa m e use that ha s be enm ad e of f ing er pr int s f or 17 de ca de s. E ve n Ju sti ce S ca lia ’ s di sse nt i n Ki ng recognizes th at s uch use has not been 18 de em edto be an un co ns ti tu ti on al pri va cy vi ol at io n. Ki ng , 569 U
. S. a t 47 7- 79.28

1 { 46} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e hol d th at the ini tia l c oll ec tio n of

aD N A sa m

ple 2 as part of ar out ine boo kin g proc ed ur e, an d its subse que nt use unde r CO D IS doe s no t 3 vio la te A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 4 III. Ar gum ents S um m arily Answ ered 5 A . Se ar ch Wa rr an t Iss ue d by Im pa rt ial Ju dg e 6 { 47} Purs uant t o Sta te v . F rank lin , 196 7- NMS C- 151, ¶

9, 78 N
. M. 127 , 428 P
. 2d 7 982 (statin g that “ appoin ted counsel shou ld set forth contentio ns urged bya petitioner 8 whether or not c ouns el feels they have m erit and w hether such contentio ns are in fa ct 9 ar gue d by

c ouns el ”) ; and State v . B oyer , 198 5- N MC A -0 29, ¶ ¶ 17- 24, 103 N
. M. 655 , 10 712 P. 2d 1 ( ex pr es sin g sam e pr inc ipl e) , D ef en dant c ont en ds tha t the De ce m be r 4, 1 1 2 0 1 0 s e a r c h wa rr a n tf o r a D N A s a mp l e wa s i n v a l i db e c au s e i twa s n o ti s s u e db y a 12 neutral and detached j udge. T he iss ue w as r ai se d inD ef en dant’ s m oti on t o su

ppr es s 13 which the district court denied. Im portantly , D efendant does not argue that the search 14 warrant is not supp orted by probable cause. 15 { 48} D ef

en dant f ai ls t o e sta

bli sh fa ct ua lly or le ga lly tha t the j udge w ho i ssu ed the 16 De cem

ber 4, 2010 searc h war

rant w as legally

disqu alified fr om

issuin g the search 17 warra nt . We th eref

or e d o n ot co ns id er t hi s i ss ue fur th er. Se e G ue rra , 2012-NMS C18 014, ¶ 21 (explaining th at the appellate courts are under no ob ligation to review 19 unclear or undeveloped argum ents).29

1 B. Statu te of L im itations 2 { 49} De fendant argues that the 1997 am endm ent to N MSA 1978 , Section 30-1-8(I) 3 (2 009) w hic h e lim ina te d th e sta tut e of lim itatio ns for al l fir st deg re e fe lon ie s do es not 4 ap ply to his c as e, a nd tha t he w as e nti tle d to the fi ft ee n y ear sta tut e of li m itatio ns f

or 5 first degree felonies under th e 1 9 7 9 v er sion o f Se ction 30 -1-8(B)
. The issue w as 6 pr es er ve d inD ef

en dant’ s m oti on t o di sm iss w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d. 7 { 50} “ Whe n f

ac ts r el ev an t t o astatut e of li m itatio ns i ssu e ar e not in dis put e, the 8 standard

of rev ie wis w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly appl ie d th e lawto the 9 undi sputed facts.” Sta te v. Ke rby , 200 7- N MS C- 014, ¶ 11, 141 N
. M. 413 , 156 P
. 3d 10 704 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). Inte rp re tatio n of the statut e of 11 li m it at io ns in th is co nt ex t i s t he refo re a l eg al qu es ti on su bjec t to de no vo rev ie w. See 12 id. Bec au se the part ie s st ipu la te d to the f ac ts m at er ia l t o D ef

en dant’ s st at

ute of 13 lim itatio ns c la im , our r ev ie w o f D ef

en dant’ s st at

ute of li m itatio ns arg um en t i s de 14 novo . 15 { 51} D e f

e n d a n t ’s a r g u men t i s a n s w e r e db y State v. M orales , 201 0- N MS C- 026, 148 16 N
. M. 305 , 236 P
. 3d 24. I n Morales , our S upr em e Co urt c onsi de re d w he the r the 199 7 17 am en dm en t to Sec tio n 30-1 -8 ap pli ed to cr im es co m m itt ed be fo re Jul y

1, 199 7, the 18 effe ct iv e d at e o f th e am en dm en t. Id

. ¶ 1. T he Co urt he ld: 19 Although the extension of a statute of lim itations cannot revive a 20 previousl y

tim e-barr ed prosecution, we co n clude that it can extend an 21 une xpi red li m itatio n pe ri od b ec au se suc h e xte nsi on d oe s no t i m pa ir30

1 ve ste d r igh ts a cquir ed und er pr ior law , re qui re ne wobl iga tio ns, im pose 2 new duties, or affix newdisabilit ies to past transactions . B ecause ca pital 3 fe lon ie s and f

ir st- de gr ee vio le nt f

el oni es c om

m itt ed a ft er Jul y 1, 198 2, 4 were n ot ti m e-b arre d as of t he effec ti ve da te of t he 19 97 am en dm en t, we 5 hol d that the L eg isl at ur e int en de d th e 1997 a m en dm en t t o a ppl y to the se 6 cr im es . 7 Id

. (citation om itted). I n other words, if the alleged crim e wa s not tim e-barr ed under 8 the fifteen y ear statute of lim itations when the 19 79 am endm ent of Sec tion 3 0-1-8 9 be c a m e e f

f e c t i ve , t he n t he 1 99 7 a m e ndm e nt , w i t h no l i m i t a t i on s pe r i od app l i e d. In 10 cause no. 4089, the indictm ent alleged that the crim es we re c omm itted on Novem ber 11 2, 198 8, m eanin g th at the f if te eny ear sta tut e of

li m itatio ns w oul d have e xpi re d in 12 2003 , which was af

ter the 1997 am endm ent becam e ef fective. Ther efore, un der 13 Morales , the 199 7 ve rs ion of S ec tio n 30 -1 -8 w ithno s ta tut e of li m itatio ns a

ppl ie d. 14 The sam e re sult is reached in cause no. 1243. T he indictm ent alleges that the crim es 15 w er e co m

m itt ed on O ct obe r 7, 19 90 , Jun e 7, 199 3, a nd N ove m be r 25, 199 3, 16 re spe ct ive ly
. F if

te eny ears f

ro m e ac h of th es e da te s is 200 5, 200 8, a nd 2 008, a ll of 17 whi ch are af

te r th e eff ect iv e d at e o f th e 1 99 7 a m en dm en t t o S ect io n 3 0- 1- 8. 18 { 52} D ef

en dant’ s a tte m

pts t o di sti ngui sh Morales on the ba sis that a ppl ic at ionof

the 19 1997 version of Section 30-1-8 is un constitu tional because “ a righ t of action had 20 ac cr ue d up on d isc ove ry , w hic h oc curr ed a t the ti m e the se c ri m es w er e re porte d” a nd 21 therefore the statute of lim itations expired fiftee n y ears a fter the c rim es we re r eported 22 i s n ot su pp or te d b y

an y au th or it ie s, i s n ot pe rs ua si ve , and is reject ed . Fin al l y,31

1 D ef en dant arg ue s, pur suant t o F rank lin an d Boye r , that be ca

use “ the c au se of

a ct ion 2 ac cr ue d a t the ti m e of

dis co ve ry , the appl ic at ionof the 199 7 am en dm en t t o 3 [D ef en d an t ] is an ex p o s tfa ct o ap p l i ca t i o n o f t h at l aw an d i s u n co n s t i tu t i o n al .” We 4 reject th is arg um en t as well
. Se e Gue rra , 201 2- N MS C- 014, ¶ 21 ( re j ec tin g th e 5 defendant’ s undevelo ped and unp rece dented c on st ruction that lacked “ any

principled 6 analy sis”). 7 C . S pe ed y Tr ial 8 { 53} De fendant’ s final claim is that the delay in bringin g his case to trial am ount ed 9 to a violatio n of his right to a speedy trial. The State r espond s that Def endant failed 10 to preserve his speedy trial claim

for appeal. W e agre e. 11 { 54} “ It

is w el l- se ttl ed

lawthat i n or de r to p reserv e a sp ee dy tr ia l arg um en t, [ the 12 d] efendant m

ust prop erly

raise it in the lower

court and invo ke a ruling.” State v. 13 Lopez , 2008 -N MC A -0 02, ¶ 25, 143 N
. M. 274, 175 P. 3d 9 42; Sta te v . G raha m , 200 3- 1 4 NM CA -1 2 7 , ¶2 9 , 1 3 4 N.M . 6 1 3 , 8 1 P. 3 d5 5 6 (s t at i n g t h at b ec au s e t h e d ef en d an t ’s 15 speedy

trial “ issue wa s not properly raised in district court, and [the d] efendant never 16 inv oke d ar

uli ng, the de fe ndant’ s sp ee dy tr ia l arg um en t was no t pres er ve d” on 17 ap pe al ), r e v ’ d o n o th e r gr ound s by 200 5- N MS C- 004, ¶

1, 137 N
. M. 197 , 109 P
. 3d 18 285. 19 { 55} D ef

en dant a sse rt ed

his r igh t t o a s pe ed y tr ia l w he n c ouns el e nte re d hi s32

1 ap pe ar an ce on Apr il 6, 201 1. D ef en dant a lso f

ile d am oti on t o di sm iss f

or avio la tio n 2 of his right to a sp eedy trial on May

18, 2015. The district court, however , denied 3 D ef en dant’s m ot io n wi tho ut a he ar ing be ca

use the m oti on w as unt im el y und er the 4 August 28, 2014 schedulin g order, which directed that all m otion s in the case be filed 5 by D ec em be r 1, 201 4. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e tha t D ef en dant f ai le d to pr es er

ve his 6 sp eed y tri al cla im

forap pe ll at e rev ie w. 7 IV. CO NC LUS ION 8 { 56} T he j udgm en t and s en te nc e in e ac h of the se c as es is af

fi rm ed
. 9 { 57} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ________ ___ 11 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e
12 WE CO NCUR:

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 14 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e