{"id":3782,"date":"2010-03-24T07:13:26","date_gmt":"2010-01-29T09:38:48","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-29T09:38:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3782","title":{"rendered":"MN: DNA taking for misdemeanor domestic battery conviction was reasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Taking of DNA from a misdemeanant convicted of \u201cpredatory offense\u201d of domestic assault that was originally a felony was reasonable. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 777 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. App. 2010):<\/p>\n

The Bartylla court concluded that the state has substantial interests in DNA collection, specifically identifying these interests as “exonerating the innocent, deterring recidivism, identifying offenders of past and future crimes, and bringing closure for victims of unsolved crimes.” Id. at 18. Here, the legislature has narrowly defined the misdemeanor offenses to which Minn. Stat. \u00a7 609.117 applies, namely those arising from the same set of circumstances as a charged felony, such that the substantial state interests enumerated in Bartylla exist with equal force for these non-felony offenses.<\/p>\n

These substantial state interests are balanced against the minimal intrusion involved in DNA collection for identification purposes and the reduced expectation of privacy held by an offender convicted of a misdemeanor of the type narrowly defined here by its connection to a felony charge. See id. (describing the physical intrusion involved in acquiring the DNA sample as “minimal”). The narrow scope of section 609.117 limits its application to those who have a reduced expectation of privacy based on the nature of their offense of conviction, which also weighs in favor of the statute’s constitutionality.<\/p>\n

Applying Bartylla’s totality-of-the-circumstances analysis and balancing the substantial state interests against the diminished privacy expectations and minimal intrusion that exist here, we conclude that Minn. Stat. \u00a7 609.117, as applied to those convicted of a misdemeanor arising from the same set of circumstances as a charged felony, does not violate the search-and-seizure provisions of the United States or Minnesota constitutions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}