Opinion ID: 2974640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fifth-Amendment Challenge

Text: Without relevant citation or analysis, Bean contended in his original brief that compulsory DNA sampling also violates his Fifth Amendment “right against self-incrimination, right against the unlawful taking of his property, and right to due process.” Although Bean’s subsequent letter brief does not make the point, Conley did not involve a Fifth Amendment challenge, so Conley does not foreclose this particular argument. Bean’s Fifth Amendment challenge, however, is also without merit. -3- No. 05-6760 United States v. Bean Bean did not raise his Fifth Amendment arguments in the district court. Accordingly, he must demonstrate that the district court committed plain error when ordering his DNA sample. See United States v. Swanberg, 370 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that plain-error review applies where defendant did not raise sentencing objection in district court). But he fails to show error, plain or otherwise. As an initial matter, because Bean provides no citations or substantive argument to support his Fifth Amendment argument, it is waived. See Figueroa-Rubio v. INS, 108 F.3d 110, 112 (6th Cir. 1997) (declining to address due-process argument where immigration petitioner failed to cite authority in support and mentioned the argument in passing only); accord United States v. Hook, __ F.3d __, No. 06-1362, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 30526, at  (7th Cir. Dec. 13, 2006) (holding that defendant waived Fifth Amendment due-process challenge to DNA Act by failing to provide “citation support or substantive argument”). Moreover, were this Court to reach the merits of this undeveloped argument, Bean would fare no better. First, the sampling does not violate Bean’s right against self-incrimination. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), the Supreme Court held that blood-test evidence, although potentially incriminating, is neither testimony nor evidence relating to any communicative act and therefore does not implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege. Id. at 764-65. For this reason, the Seventh Circuit (in a decision citing this Court’s Conley decision with approval) and Ninth Circuit recently held that requiring DNA samples under the DNA Act does not violate a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. United States v. Reynard, __ F.3d __, No. 02-50476, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 665, at -33 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing Schmerber, 384 U.S. 757); -4- No. 05-6760 United States v. Bean Hook, __ F.3d at __, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 30526, at -16 (same); accord Boling v. Romer, 101 F.3d 1336, 1341 (10th Cir. 1996) (DNA samples are not testimonial in nature); cf. Kyger v. Carlton, 146 F.3d 374, 381 n.2 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Bridges, 499 F.2d 179, 184 (7th Cir. 1974), for the proposition that “[s]wabbing, like drawing the defendant’s blood in Schmerber . . . was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, since the swabbing did not provide the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature”). We reach the same conclusion. Second, the sampling does not violate Bean’s right against deprivation of property without due process. Due-process challenges to the Act have been consistently rejected by the courts. See, e.g., United States v. Hugs, 384 F.3d 762, 768-69 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that condition of supervised release that requires DNA testing under the Act is not unconstitutionally vague and therefore meets procedural due-process requirements); Johnson v. Quander, 370 F. Supp. 2d 79, 8993 (D.D.C. 2005) (holding that DNA Act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment), aff’d, 440 F.3d 489, 503 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (concluding that Fifth Amendment challenge to DNA Act is “without merit and do[es] not warrant separate discussion”). Indeed, this Court has held that providing an inmate with notice and an opportunity to be heard when a DNA blood sample is taken under Ohio’s DNA-collection statute affords adequate procedural protections for the kind of “de minim[i]s” taking involved. Williams v. Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 3 F. App’x 415, 417 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublished order). In sum, Bean’s Fifth Amendment challenges to the DNA Act also fail. -5- No. 05-6760 United States v. Bean