Cal.4: Misdemeanants stated claim that DNA testing of them was a violation of state right of privacy

Plaintiffs stated a claim that the Orange County program for collection of DNA from misdemeanants violated their right to privacy. There may be instances were a misdemeanor may be a “serious crime” but in general, no. The trial court erred in granting the demurrer. Thompson v. Spitzer, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 275 (4th Dist. Apr. 11, 2023). See Courthouse News Service: Lawsuit over Orange County DNA collection program revived by Hillel Aron
(“A California appeals court revived a lawsuit Tuesday filed by two UC Irvine professors challenging the Orange County district attorney’s controversial program which takes DNA samples from people charged with misdemeanors as part of plea agreements.”)

The space around two homes next to each other were curtilage. (There were genuine issues of fact for trial here on the warrantless non-exigent entry onto the property.) O’Kelley v. Curran, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8601 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).

The officer’s reasonable belief that the consenter had the authority to do so entitled him to qualified immunity. “Here, Clark reasonably believed that Deckard’s representative had authority to consent to the seizure. He knew that the partnership owned the house and, according to the foreclosure judgment, its contents. Further, Deckard voluntarily contacted the federal prosecutor to offer the documents, and a Deckard employee orally agreed that Clark could take the property and initialed his inventory receipt. All these interactions reasonably indicated that Deckard could, and did, consent to the seizure.” Mitan v. Clark, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8545 (7th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, DNA, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.