NM: State’s DNA collection act const’l under King; def has no interest in whether his DNA might end up tested against a cold case was lawfully collected

The state has an interest in collecting DNA from arrestees, and King is followed. Defendant doesn’t make any credible argument why the state constitution should be applied except that he shouldn’t have his DNA compared to that on file from other cases. He doesn’t have standing to raise that argument. Also, the conclusory argument the issuing magistrate was not neutral and detached is summarily rejected. State v. Blea, 2015-NMCA-046, 2018 N.M. App. LEXIS 33 (June 27, 2018):

[*45] The argument overlooks the fact that the State has obtained an arrestee’s DNA in a manner that is both lawful and consistent with the New Mexico Constitution. The real complaint is that other information, lawfully in the State’s possession—DNA from unsolved crime scenes—can be compared to the arrestee’s known DNA. A defendant has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in DNA he or she leaves at a past or future crime scene, and a defendant has no constitutionally protected interest in the DNA used for identification at booking upon arrest. Under these circumstances, we do not perceive a constitutional violation. Obviously, the comparison of known DNA, obtained at booking, with unknown DNA, seized from unsolved crime scenes, is exactly the same use that has been made of fingerprints for decades. Even Justice Scalia’s dissent in King recognizes that such use has not been deemed to be an unconstitutional privacy violation. King, 569 U.S. at 477-79.

[*46] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the initial collection of a DNA sample as part of a routine booking procedure, and its subsequent use under CODIS does not violate Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.

. . .

[*48] Defendant fails to establish factually or legally that the judge who issued the December 4, 2010 search warrant was legally disqualified from issuing the search warrant. We therefore do not consider this issue further. See Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 (explaining that the appellate courts are under no obligation to review unclear or undeveloped arguments).