{"id":6721,"date":"2012-07-28T16:10:17","date_gmt":"2012-02-23T14:39:55","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-02-23T14:39:55","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6721","title":{"rendered":"CA9 upholds DNA testing on an arrest with probable cause"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>CA9 upholds DNA testing on an arrest with probable cause. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2012\/02\/23\/10-15152.pdf\">Haskell v. Harris<\/a>, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We assess the constitutionality of the 2004 Amendment by considering the \u201ctotality of the circumstances,\u201d balancing the arrestees\u2019 privacy interests against the Government\u2019s need for the DNA samples. Law enforcement officials collect a DNA sample from a buccal swab of the arrestee\u2019s mouth, a de minimis intrusion that occurs only after a law enforcement officer determines there is probable cause to believe that the individual committed a felony. Law  enforcement officers analyze only enough DNA information to identify the individual, making DNA collection substantially similar to fingerprinting, which law enforcement officials have used for decades to identify arrestees, without serious constitutional objection. Moreover, state and federal statutes impose significant criminal and civil penalties on persons  who misuse DNA information. On the other side of the balance, DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement officials to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects. After weighing these factors, we conclude that the Government\u2019s compelling interests far outweigh arrestees\u2019 privacy concerns. Thus, we hold that the 2004 Amendment does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and we affirm. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Changes from the 90s: DNA was taken by blood and resulted in only a few exonerations. The change in both made this possible.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Update:<\/strong> Rehearing en banc granted July 25, 2012, and this is republished July 28th. This opinion is now vacated by the grant and can&#8217;t be cited.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6721\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-6721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6721","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}