{"id":4979,"date":"2011-07-04T18:01:48","date_gmt":"2010-12-11T08:15:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-12-11T08:15:32","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4979","title":{"rendered":"MA: Indictment of DNA profile was constitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following other states, Massachusetts holds that DNA profile John Doe indictment was constitutionally sufficient to toll limitations period in a rape case. After the indictment, the DNA profile was matched via CODIS. Commonwealth v. Dixon<\/a>, 458 Mass. 446, 938 N.E.2d 878 (2010):<\/p>\n

The John Doe indictments in this case, identifying Dixon primarily by his unique DNA profile, are an entirely different species. Where a general John Doe indictment, bereft of any particularity, must fail as generally anonymous, the converse is true of a DNA indictment: it prevails as precisely eponymous. A properly generated DNA profile is a string of code that exclusively identifies a person\u2019s hereditary composition with near infallibility. …<\/p>\n

In sum, the March 15 and July 11 indictments incorporating Dixon\u2019s unique DNA profile, and bolstered by age, height, weight, and race descriptions, comport with art. 12 and, in this respect, were valid when rendered by the grand juries. Connor, supra at 576-578.FN18<\/p>\n

18. In holding as we do, we are in accord with several other jurisdictions that have upheld the validity of accusatory documents that name a unique DNA profile. See People v. Robinson<\/a>, 47 Cal.4th 1104, 1133-1135, cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 72 (2010) (arrest warrant for thirteen-loci DNA profile, which also offered explanation that profile had random match probability essentially incapable of duplication in human population, complied with particularity requirements of Fourth Amendment to United States Constitution and California Constitution); State v. Belt<\/a>, 285 Kan. 949, 960-962 (2008) (expressing agreement \u201cin the abstract\u201d with proposition that warrant identifying person to be arrested for sexual offense by person\u2019s unique DNA profile can satisfy constitutional and statutory particularity requirements, but affirming dismissal where warrant and supporting affidavits did not incorporate unique DNA sequence, but rather DNA loci common to all people); People v. Martinez<\/a>, 52 A.D.3d 68, 73 (N.Y.2008) (especially in light of prevalence of DNA data banks as criminal justice tools, \u201cDNA indictment is an appropriate method to prosecute perpetrators of some of the most heinous criminal acts\u201d); State v. Dabney<\/a>, supra at 853, 854, quoting Scheer v. Keown, 29 Wis. 586, 588 (1872) (when name is unknown, complaint or warrant may issue if referencing \u201cbest description of the person prosecuted\u201d and noting that \u201cfor purposes of identifying \u2018a particular person\u2019 as the defendant, a DNA profile is arguably the most discrete, exclusive means of personal identification possible\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[Note: Also, there is this point: There is no indiscriminate arrest of people on the DNA profile, as could happen on a John Doe warrant or a mere physical description. Here the arrest does not occur until the DNA profile has already been matched from some other source, so there is no general warrant problem.]<\/p>\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-4979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4979","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=4979"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4979\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}