Opinion ID: 163635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cooperation in the Collection of a DNA Sample

Text: 56 In addition to the standard conditions of supervision applicable to Kimler during the post-incarceration three-year period of his supervised release, the district court imposed twenty special conditions. The first such condition requires that [t]he defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA, as directed by the probation officer. J. at 5, R. Vol. I, tab 47. 57 Kimler challenges this condition on the following four grounds, which we review de novo because they raise solely legal questions: (1) his offenses are not qualifying offenses under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (DNA Act), 42 U.S.C. 14135a, because they did not involve the sexual abuse or exploitation of children; (2) this condition of supervised release is not reasonably related to his offenses; (3) the DNA Act violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (4) the DNA Act is unconstitutional because it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. 58 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), as amended by Pub.L. 106-546, § 7(b), Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2734, provides in pertinent part as follows: 59 (d) Conditions of supervised release. —... The court shall order, as an explicit condition of supervised release, that the defendant cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the defendant, if the collection of such a sample is authorized pursuant to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. 60 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (emphasis added). 61 In turn, section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, Pub.L. 106-546, § 3, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2728, codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(2) and (d)(B), provide in pertinent part as follows: 62 (2) From individuals on release, parole, or probation 63 The probation office responsible for the supervision under Federal law of an individual on probation, parole, or supervised release shall collect a DNA sample from each such individual who is, or has been, convicted of a qualifying Federal offense (as determined under subsection (d)) .... 64 .... 65 (d) Qualifying Federal offenses 66 .... 67 (B) An offense relating to ... sexual exploitation or other abuse of children ( as described in chapter 110 of such title, sections 2251 through 2252 ).... 68 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(2) and (d)(B) (emphasis added). 69 These mandatory statutory provisions, passed in 2000, were not reflected in the Sentencing Guidelines until the November 2002 edition, which, as the statutes direct, make the collection of DNA samples a mandatory condition of supervised release. USSG § 5D1.3(a)(8) (2002 ed.). Inexplicably, the briefs of both parties to this appeal proceed in large part on the assumption that the 2001 edition of the Guidelines apply to this condition, making the collection of DNA samples discretionary and thus subject to the conditions set out in USSG § 5D1.3(b). See United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981, 987-88 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1069, 122 S.Ct. 1943, 152 L.Ed.2d 847 (2002). 70 However, since statutes trump guidelines when the two conflict, United States v. Heckard, 238 F.3d 1222, 1237 (10th Cir.2001), the statutory provisions set out above govern our resolution of Kimler's appeal on this issue. 13 Citing the statute, the district court overruled Kimler's objections to the DNA condition of supervision. R. Vol. IV at 27; Order at 2, R. Vol. I, tab 52. 71 On appeal, Kimler argues first that § 14135a(d)(1)(B) is inapplicable since it is directed only at those who engage in the sexual exploitation or other abuse of children, and that his conduct did not amount to exploitation or abuse. Appellant's Br. at 25. He asserts the Congress could not have intended such a broad interpretation to permit application of the DNA collection procedures to one convicted of simply having such depictions come through one's computer. Id. at 25-26. 72 We agree with the district court that the argument is resolved by the plain language of § 14135a(d)(1)(B) which expressly covers offenses under § 2252. Furthermore, the statutory language expansively refers to conduct  relating to  exploitation and abuse. The Supreme Court has made it clear that [t]he distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 759, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). [T]he materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Id. (emphasis added). 73 [P]ornography poses an even greater threat to the child victim than does sexual abuse or prostitution. Because the child's actions are reduced to a recording, the pornography may haunt him in future years, long after the original misdeed took place. A child who has posed for a camera must go through life knowing that the recording is circulating within the mass distribution system for child pornography. 74 Id. at 759 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 3348 (quotation omitted). 75 In a brief paragraph without supporting authority or a clear statement of his argument, Kimler next argues that the DNA Act is unconstitutional as an unreasonable, warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. We disagree. The DNA Act, while implicating the Fourth Amendment, is a reasonable search and seizure under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement because the desire to build a DNA database goes beyond the ordinary law enforcement need. See, e.g., Shaffer v. Saffle, 148 F.3d 1180, 1181 (10th Cir.1998); Schlicher v. (NFN) Peters, I & I, 103 F.3d 940, 943 (10th Cir.1996); Boling v. Romer, 101 F.3d 1336, 1340 (10th Cir.1996); Miller v. United States Parole Comm'n, 2003 WL 1992428, at -10 (D.Kan. April 15, 2003); United States v. Sczubelek, 255 F.Supp.2d 315, 319-23 (D.Del.2003); see also Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72, 77-80 (2d Cir.1999) (upholding Connecticut DNA collection statute under special needs doctrine); but see United States v. Miles, 228 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1135-38 (E.D.Ca. 2002). 14 76 Kimler also briefly argues, without any supporting case authority, that the DNA Act violates the principle of separation of powers because Congress is ordering the judicial branch to impose a particular condition of supervised release. The argument is meritless. 77 Finally, both Kimler and the government address various arguments to whether or not DNA collection meets the Walser and related requirements for the imposition of discretionary conditions of supervision. As explained above, the mandatory nature of the governing statutes renders such a discussion irrelevant. However, reviewing for abuse of discretion, where appropriate, see United States v. Zanghi, 209 F.3d 1201, 1203 (10th Cir.2000), and de novo with respect to the interpretation of the statutes and guidelines, see United States v. Archuletta, 231 F.3d 682, 684-85 (10th Cir.2000) (guidelines), and United States v. Gigley, 213 F.3d 503, 505 (10th Cir.2000) (statute), we hold, alternatively, that the district court did not err in finding that all the applicable conditions, including deterrence, are satisfied relative to the DNA collection requirement. See Order at 2, R. Vol. I, tab 52.