Maryland v. King: What is a reasonable search?

The Supreme Court on Monday, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from individuals who have been arrested but not yet convicted of a felony crime. The Court essentially claimed that a DNA swab from the inside of an individual's cheek amounts to the 21st century form of finger printing. The primary issue at play in the Maryland v. King is the Fourth Amendment and person's Constitutional protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures". Although the ruling was split 5-4, Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, joined three of the court's liberal justice's in the dissent. The Court ruling tackles the complex issue of a person's expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and legitimate interests of the government and law enforcement.

The Background: Alonzo King, Jr. was arrested in the State of Maryland on April 10, 2009, and charged with first and second degree assault in state court for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. While King was being processed for detention in custody, booking personnel took a cheek swab of his DNA pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act.

In July 2009, King's DNA was submitted to the Maryland DNA Database, and three weeks later, his DNA profile matched a DNA sample from an unsolved 2003 rape case. Following his DNA match, authorities submitted the evidence to a grand jury, which indicted him in the 2003 rape. Law enforcement then received a search warrant to take a second DNA sample, which again linked him to the unsolved 2003 rape case. King moved to have the DNA matches "suppressed" (fancy word for not allowed to be used in court) because he argued taking the original DNA sample violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. King pleaded not guilty to the rape, but with clear DNA connection, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against King, upholding Maryland's DNA collection law. The Court found that the Maryland DNA Collection Act serves a legitimate government interest in verifying the identity of those it has probable cause to take into custody on suspicion of certain serious crimes. The majority ruling explains that an individual's "identity" is more than just their name; rather, it also covers past criminal history. "The only difference between DNA analysis and fingerprint databases is the unparalleled accuracy DNA provides," Justice Kennedy wrote. This is critical because DNA, not only can connect arrestee's with a previously unsolved crime, as in the case with Alonzo King, but the samples can also exonerate and free those who have been falsely convicted of a crime they never committed. In making their decision the Court also found the DNA sample will assist Judges with determining bail by clarifying what type of flight risk or potential danger the individual might be.

My Take: Personally, I believe there must be a true and legitimate government interest that serves the people in order to restrict any of the rights laid forth in the Constitution. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be a perfect scenario where I believe restricting the freedom of speech is justified, and subsequently has been upheld by the Supreme Court. I fully understand why many would have issue with the Court's ruling in the Maryland v. King case; in fact, my initial reaction was to oppose the ruling. However, as I read the full Opinion and the facts of the case, I have come to agree with the Court's decision. There were three primary points that I believe justify the right of authorities to take a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested for a felony crime, prior to conviction:

1) The government has proved they have a "legitimate interest" in taking a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested for a serious crime (not just a traffic stop) because determining their full identity, past criminal record and possible connection to unsolved crime, is critical to a safer and more just society. Authorities already fingerprint EVERY person who is arrested and already attempt to cross reference those fingerprints and mug shots for any possible connection to unsolved cases. The ability to exonerate someone who has been falsely convicted, or prevent men like Mr. King (a now convicted rapist with DNA from the victim matching his) from roaming the streets, is a critical tool unavailable to law enforcement in the past, while still upholding a person's Fourth Amendment right.

2) Taking someone's DNA by a cotton swab does not qualify as an unreasonable search or seizure, with the key word being "unreasonable". If you are arrested on suspicion of committing a felony crime and are being processed for booking, a small cotton swab from your cheek is surely difficult to qualify as an unreasonable search. You are already fingerprinted and your mug shot will be taken, and taking a cotton swab is hard to imagine as being an unreasonable invasion of your body.

3) What about the government holding your DNA in a secret data base where they can discover the most basic building blocks of your biological identity? An understandable fear, however not possible because the DNA that is analyzed and submitted to the data base is ONLY the "un-coded" portion of an individual's DNA - that is, the portions of the genetic code that serves no function in any capacity but still remains unique to each person. The "un-coded" part of someone's DNA has absolutely no impact on your development, physical traits, or any other aspect of your being. Furthermore, the Maryland DNA Collection Act (which is similar to laws used by the Fed and 29 other States) still imposes significant limitations on when that "un-coded" DNA can be used.

No doubt this is a complex and highly charged case, and I understand the merit of both arguments. Ultimately, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly while maintaining our guaranteed protections set forth in the Constitution.

If you have any thoughts, opinions, want to respectfully disagree, or offer any other insight on the Maryland v. King case I would love to hear from you!