Opinion ID: 1749345
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Special needs apart from ordinary law enforcement

Text: Appellants argue that DNA sampling is for law enforcement purposes, and thus does not fall within the special needs exception. As Appellants note, KRS 17.170 states that DNA shall be taken for law enforcement identification purposes and inclusion in law enforcement identification databases[,] and DNA database information is to be used for law enforcement purposes. KRS 17.175(4). Under the special needs test, law enforcement objectives violate the Fourth Amendment when the primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control. ... Edmond, 531 U.S. at 48, 121 S.Ct. 447. However, the phrase `general interest in crime control' does not refer to every law enforcement' objective. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 424, 124 S.Ct. 885, 157 L.Ed.2d 843 (2004). While the DNA database is maintained for law enforcement purposes, the primary purpose is not a general interest in crime control. Instead, the primary purpose of the DNA database is to assist ... law enforcement agencies ... in the identification, detection, or exclusion of individuals who are subjects of the investigation or prosecution of sex-related crimes, violent crimes, or other crimes and the identification and location of missing and unidentified persons. KRS 17.175(2). It is an investigative tool designed to provide law enforcement with additional information. Its purpose is not to detect unknown crimes, but rather to assist police in solving crimes where the perpetrator left DNA evidence. See People v. Garvin, 219 Ill.2d 104, 301 Ill.Dec. 423, 847 N.E.2d 82, 91 (2006). In this respect, a DNA database differs significantly from the programs at issue in Edmond and Ferguson. In those cases, the programs were designed to obtain evidence of a crime. Unlike the urine samples in Ferguson, which contained evidence of the use of illegal drugs, a DNA sample is not by itself evidence of any crime. It merely provides identifying information that can be compared to physical evidence. See Nicholas, 430 F.3d at 669; Garvin, 301 Ill.Dec. 423, 847 N.E.2d at 91; State v. Steele, 155 Ohio App.3d 659, 802 N.E.2d 1127, 1136 (2003). As such, DJJ does not sample DNA for the immediate and sole purpose of collecting incriminating evidence. Williams v. Commonwealth, 213 S.W.3d 671, 676 (Ky.2006). Kentucky's DNA sampling program therefore fulfills a special need apart from ordinary law enforcement.