Source: http://sites.psu.edu/dhlaw/tag/marylandvking/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:01:32+00:00

Document:
Yesterday, Justice Stevens addressed the American Constitution Society. He took the unusual step of stating how he would have voted on the constitutionality of collecting DNA from arrestees and using it, not necessarily as proof of the individual’s true identity, but as an investigative tool to link the arrestee to unrelated crimes. This is, of course, the use that split the Court in this month’s decision in Maryland v. King.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Andrew Cohen, arrestee DNA databases, Atlantic, Fourth Amendment, Justice Stevens, Maryland v. King on June 15, 2013 by dhk3.
Supreme Court watchers took note of an article by an astute reporter on “an irony” in the fact that Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Maryland v. King cited Actual Innocence, an important book about DNA exonerations. See A Digression on Ellipses, Actual Innocence, and Dr. Mengele, June 13, 2013.
Part of the problem was what he called an irony. [�] In 2009, Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion in a 5-to-4 decision that said prisoners had no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence. Mr. Neufeld, who founded the Innocence Project with Barry Scheck, represented the prisoner on the losing end of that case, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne.
But last week, Mr. Neufeld said, Justice Kennedy concluded that “it’s O.K. for the state to take DNA, without a warrant, from mere arrestees, who may ultimately have their charges dismissed.” [�] The combination of the two decisions baffled Mr. Neufeld. “That is quite a worldview,” he said of a jurisprudence that allows nonconsensual testing of people presumed innocent but denies voluntary testing to people who insist that they really are innocent.
Adam Liptak, Cited by a Justice, But Feeling Less Than Honored, N.Y. Times, June 11, 2013, at A15.
This juxtaposition of King and Osborne is “quite a worldview,” but it is not an accurate description of the Court’s jurisprudence on DNA evidence. … continued on the FSSL Blog.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged actual innocence, Adam Liptak, DNA databases, DNA on arrest, Maryland v. King, Osborne, Peter Neufeld, postconviction DNA testing on June 15, 2013 by dhk3.
New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak recently tweaked the noses of the justices who upheld the constitutionality of routinely taking DNA from individuals arrested of assault, homicide and burglary. See Cited by a Justice, But Feeling Less Than Honored, N.Y. Times, June 11, 2013, at A15.
(Continued on the FSSL Blog).
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged actual innocence, arrestee DNA sampling, DNA databases, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Maryland v. King on June 13, 2013 by dhk3.
There are lots of criticisms that one can make of the majority opinion in Maryland v. King — and even more that apply to the dissent — but, contrary to one commentator, I do not think that the Court’s reference to the use of anthropometrics as employed in the late 1800s and early 1900s for authenticating the identities of prisoners is particularly problematic. … Find more at http://for-sci-law-now.blogspot.com/2013/06/maryland-v-king-no-3-bertillonage-as.html.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged anthropometrics, arrestee DNA sampling, Bertillon, DNA databanks, DNA database, fingerprints, Maryland v. King on June 12, 2013 by dhk3.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged DNA databanks, DNA sampling on arrest, Maryland v. King, search and seizure on June 9, 2013 by dhk3.
Maryland v King: Was There a Search (or Two)?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged DNA databases, DNA on arrest, Maryland v. King, search and seizure on June 7, 2013 by dhk3.
Today the Supreme Court, in a rather staid opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Thomas, upheld the Maryland law that requires individuals arrested and detained for major crimes to submit DNA samples that can be checked against a database of DNA profiles from unsolved crimes. Justice Scalia, wrote a bitter and sarcastic dissent for himself and Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
I think the question is more delicately balanced than either opinion indicates. For more detailed comments, see the Forensic Science, Statistics, and the Law blog.
Maryland v. King, No. 12-207 (U.S. June 3, 2013).
Kaye, David H. 2013. “A Fourth Amendment Theory for Arrestee DNA and Other Biometric Databases.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 15(4): 1095-1160.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged DNA on arrest, Maryland v. King, opinion on June 3, 2013 by dhk3.
How Skinner, Greenwood, and Davis (4th Cir. 2012) affect the claim that a laboratory analysis limited to identifying features is a search in its own right.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged arrestee DNA databases, fingerprints, Fourth Amendment, Maryland v. King, oral argument, special needs, Supreme Court on March 11, 2013 by dhk3.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.