Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appeal
appeal

Related Cases

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045, 78 USLW 4159, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2218, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2731, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135
View Case »
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769, 72 USLW 4103, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,763, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,581, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 83
View Case »
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276, 58 USLW 4281
View Case »
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769, 72 USLW 4103, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,763, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,581, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 83
View Case »
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045, 78 USLW 4159, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2218, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2731, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1, 81 USLW 4343, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5551, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6991, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 234

Facts

Alonzo King was arrested in 2009 for assault charges and had his DNA collected via a buccal swab as part of the booking process. This DNA was later matched to an unsolved rape case from 2003, leading to his conviction for that crime. King argued that the DNA collection violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the Circuit Court upheld the law. The Maryland Court of Appeals later ruled the DNA collection unconstitutional, prompting the state to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court.

Alonzo King was arrested in 2009 for assault charges and had his DNA collected via a buccal swab as part of the booking process.

Issue

Whether the collection and analysis of DNA from a suspect arrested for a serious offense using a buccal swab constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

Whether the collection and analysis of DNA from a suspect arrested for a serious offense using a buccal swab constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

Rule

The Fourth Amendment allows for searches that are reasonable, and the collection of DNA from arrestees is justified by the government's interest in identifying individuals taken into custody for serious offenses.

The Fourth Amendment allows for searches that are reasonable, and the collection of DNA from arrestees is justified by the government's interest in identifying individuals taken into custody for serious offenses.

Analysis

The Court determined that the DNA collection procedure was akin to traditional booking procedures like fingerprinting and photographing, which are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The minimal intrusion of a buccal swab, combined with the significant governmental interest in accurately identifying arrestees, justified the search without the need for individualized suspicion.

The Court determined that the DNA collection procedure was akin to traditional booking procedures like fingerprinting and photographing, which are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the DNA collection from King was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the DNA collection from King was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Who won?

The State of Maryland prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court found that the DNA collection was reasonable and served a legitimate government interest.

The State of Maryland prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court found that the DNA collection was reasonable and served a legitimate government interest.

You must be