NJ holds DNA collection from juveniles adjudicated delinquents is valid

New Jersey holds in two cases that the state DNA act can be applied to crimes occurring before its effective date and it applies to juveniles, even under 14, who have committed acts which would be a felony if committed by an adult. A.A. v. Attorney General of New Jersey, 189 N.J. 128, 940 A.2d 260 (N.J. January 24, 2007), aff’g 384 N.J. Super. 67, 894 A.2d 31 (2006); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140, 914 A.2d 267 (N.J. January 24, 2007).

Defendant was arrested in his house, but the search incident did not occur for twenty minutes after the officer called to talk to others. There is no time limit on when a search incident can occur, and there was no intervening act of consequence, so the search incident was valid. United States v. Wong, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4468 (N.D. Cal. January 9, 2007):

Based upon the record before the Court, the Court finds that the search of defendant’s bedroom was “roughly contemporaneous” with his arrest. Cagney’s phone call to Martinovich was not an intervening act, but rather was “part of a continuous, uninterrupted course of events” of conducting the search. McLaughlin, 170 F.3d at 893. Cagney called Martinovich to inform him that he had found marijuana and a shotgun in defendant’s bedroom, and Martinovich told Cagney that he had found an operating marijuana grow to which defendant was believed to be connected. The call took place during the course of the search, and was topically related to the search. Accordingly, the Court finds that the call to Martinovich did not invalidate the search incident to arrest.

Although it is a closer call, the Court concludes that based upon the evidence submitted, the alleged questioning of defendant also did not constitute an intervening act. Defendant states that officers questioned him for 15 to 20 minutes after he was arrested. Significantly, however, defendant does not state that officers questioned him before conducting the search of his bedroom; defendant’s reply declaration is silent on when the alleged questioning took place. Defendant’s reply declaration also does not provide any specific information regarding what allegedly transpired during the questioning. Because there is no evidence before the Court that defendant was questioned prior to the commencement of the search, the Court finds that there was no intervening act to invalidate the search of defendant’s bedroom as a search incident to arrest.