IL: Court ordered DNA test for parentage satisfied Fourth Amendment

In a parentage case, a court ordered DNA test did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the proponent of the test had to show that it would provide relevant evidence. The Illinois Supreme Court removed a “good cause” showing from the rule, but some showing had to be made. [Essentially, the relevance requirement satisfies the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment, which is what it should have said. This case has an interesting discussion of civil discovery and the Fourth Amendment without concluding much. Right result, could be better stated.] Kaull v. Kaull, 2014 IL App (2d) 130175, 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 913 (December 22, 2014), Modified upon denial of rehearing January 27, 2015, corrected February 5, 2015:

[*P71] We recognize that since 1995 two panels of our appellate court have indicated that a showing of “good cause” is still required under Rule 215. See Fosse v. Pensabene, 362 Ill. App. 3d 172, 189-90 (2005); Copeland v. McLean, 327 Ill. App. 3d 855, 862 (2002). In both of those cases, however, the courts accurately quoted the amended Rule 215 language, but cited and relied upon cases interpreting the pre-1996 version of the rule.

[*P72] In Jarke, 2011 IL App (4th) 110150, ¶ 29, the appellate court said that, where there was a presumption of paternity and one sibling was attempting to disinherit another sibling, a trial court should not order a DNA test unless there was a showing of “persuasive and credible” evidence that would lead the court to believe that the DNA test would result in disinheritance. In the instant case the trial court followed Jarke and found that Ryan had presented “ample evidence” to meet that standard.

[*P73] Rule 215 still requires that the movant produce sufficient information to meet the “in controversy” and “relevance” requirements so that the trial judge can fulfill his function mandated by the rule. An evidentiary hearing is not necessarily required, though a hearing may be required in some cases. The showing “could be made by affidavits or other usual methods short of a hearing.” Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 119. Discovery should be denied when insufficient evidence suggests that the requested exam is relevant or will lead to relevant evidence. See Manns v. Briell, 349 Ill. App. 3d 358 (2004). For all of these reasons, then, we hold that Rule 215 does not violate the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution or the privacy clause of the Illinois Constitution. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6.