DNA that should have been expunged and wasn\u2019t isn\u2019t subject to suppression under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Green, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212916 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2021):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
In any event, even if a violation of the Act had occurred, defendant has not established that suppression of the DNA sample is the remedy. See Government’s Response [72] at 3. “[T]here is no exclusionary rule generally applicable to statutory violations”. United States v. Abdi, 463 F.3d 547, 556 (6th Cir. 2006). “The availability of the suppression remedy for \u2026 statutory, as opposed to constitutional, violations \u2026 turns on the provisions of [the statute] rather than the judicially fashioned exclusionary rule aimed at deterring violations of Fourth Amendment rights.” United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 432 n. 22, 97 S. Ct. 658, 50 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1977). See also United States v. Clenney, 631 F.3d 658, 667 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[i]n the statutory context, suppression is a creature of the statute, and its availability depends on the statutory text”). However, defendant identifies no provision of the Act that makes suppression an available remedy. See Clenney, 631 F.3d at 667 (“Congress has shown that it knows how to create a statutory suppression remedy. It did so in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2515, which provides for suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the statutes governing wiretaps. Yet it chose not to do so in the context of \u00a7 2703(c) violations. Therefore, Congress has made clear that it did not intend to suppress evidence gathered as a result of \u00a7 2703(c) violations”); United States v. Guzman, 879 F. Supp. 2d 312, 323 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“[i]n short, the statutory text does not suggest, in any way, that Congress intended a per se suppression remedy for violations of the JDA’s parental notification requirement”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
DNA that should have been expunged and wasn\u2019t isn\u2019t subject to suppression under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Green, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212916 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2021):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dna"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50202","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=50202"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50202\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50203,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50202\/revisions\/50203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=50202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=50202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=50202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}