The government\u2019s motion to compel DNA samples is granted. Defendants are already indicted, and it needs to test the samples to confirm a CODIS match. The government also has shown probable cause for the sample. United States v. Sexton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75847 (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2012):<\/p>\n
The Court notes that “the obtaining of physical evidence from a person involves a potential Fourth Amendment violation at two different levels\u2014the ‘seizure’ of the ‘person’ necessary to bring him into contact with government agents and the subsequent search for and seizure of the evidence.” Dionisio<\/a>, 410 U.S. at 8 (internal citation omitted). In this case, the first level is not at issue. An indictment has been returned against each Defendant, Dkt. # 23, and a neutral magistrate has found probable cause to seize each Defendant, Dkt. # 1. The Court thus moves to the second level question: whether, “‘given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before [the Court] … there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'” United States v. Tan Duc Nguyen, 673 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).<\/p>\n
. . . <\/p>\n
Moreover, the Court sees no reason to deny the United States’ request as to the DNA or the fingerprints simply because the United States may have already procured similar samples. As the United States explains, the laboratory requests new DNA samples in order to confirm that the CODIS record is accurate. Frankly, this is not only logical, but reassuring. It minimizes the risk that an erroneous positive will result in the conviction of an innocent defendant. And while Defendants may have been fingerprinted already in this case, major case prints\u2014a far more thorough recording of all the friction detail ridges covering the hand\u2014have not been obtained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading