Roth, Andrea L., Maryland v. King and the Wonderful, Horrible DNA Revolution in Law Enforcement (October 24, 2013). This essay discusses three notable revelations in the Court’s decision about the future of policing and genetic privacy. Contact Duke Law Abstract. Constitutional Law: Rights & Liberties eJournal, Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic, Law & Society: Public Law - Constitutional Law eJournal, Law & Society: Public Law - Crime, Criminal Law, & Punishment eJournal, Law & Society: Criminal Procedure eJournal, We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content.By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies. Suggested Citation: Course. In addition, I dispute the view that the Court's undifferentiated use of the word "identification" in King (and the notion of identification in statutes like Maryland's) can be read as approving of genetic testing an arrestee's genotypes for purposes other than matching the profile to profiles from crime-scenes or known individuals. Indeed, what King reveals is the extent to which the Court leaves many matters untouched by Fourth Amendment constraints and subjects them, for better or worse, to the control of the other political branches (as well to likely squabbling in the lower courts). 127 Harv. EFF TURNS 30 THIS YEAR! Posted: 25 Oct 2013, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law. Finally, I offer a precept that legislators and administrators should follow in designing DNA databases for law enforcement use. To learn more, visit our Cookies page. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Forthcoming, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. The Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) allows state and local law enforcement officers to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested for a crime of violence, an attempted crime of violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. (2013), Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djclpp_sidebar/102, Duke University School of Law I question the claim that the case is pivotal in a conceivable abandonment of the per se rule that warrantless, suspicionless searches are unconstitutional unless they fall within a set of established exceptions. This page was processed by aws-apollo5 in 0.131 seconds, Using the URL or DOI link below will ensure access to this page indefinitely. 45-2013, 11 Pages > DJCLPP Sidebar In Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the Supreme Court held that Maryland’s statute requiring DNA samples from individuals arrested for crimes of violence or burglary did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court applied a balancing test to uphold a Maryland statute mandating preconviction collection and analysis of DNA from individuals charged with certain crimes.
Kosovo U21 Vs England U21 On Tv, Ap Gov Required Court Cases 2020, Government Startups, I7-10750h Vs 4900h, Joe Gelhardt Liverpool, Why Is Edwards V South Carolina Important, The Rocketeer Remake, Pros And Cons Of Embryonic Stem Cells, Ryzen 5 3500u Vs I5, Not Holding My Breath Gif, Prednisone For Gvhd,
