{"id":7914,"date":"2013-02-21T08:24:53","date_gmt":"2012-11-02T12:20:55","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-11-02T12:20:55","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7914","title":{"rendered":"OH: It does not violate the Fourth Amendment for the State of Ohio to keep the DNA of a person acquitted and then use it later"},"content":{"rendered":"

It does not violate the Fourth Amendment for the State of Ohio to keep the DNA of a person acquitted and then use it later. State v. Emerson<\/a>, 2012 Ohio 5047, 134 Ohio St. 3d 191, 2012 Ohio LEXIS 2630 (Ohio November 1, 2012):<\/p>\n

{\u00b6 1} There are two issues presented in this case. First, when a sample of a person\u2019s DNA is lawfully obtained by the state during the course of a criminal investigation but the person is acquitted of that crime, does that person have standing to object under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the retention by the state of the DNA profile obtained from that sample or its use in a subsequent criminal investigation? Second, is the state authorized to retain and subsequently use a DNA profile when the DNA sample was lawfully taken from a person during a criminal investigation, but the person was acquitted? <\/p>\n

{\u00b6 2} For the reasons that follow, we conclude that a person does not have standing to object to the retention of his or her DNA profile or the profile\u2019s use in a subsequent criminal investigation, and the state is authorized to retain the DNA profile and to use it in a subsequent investigation even though the profile was obtained from a sample taken during the investigation of a crime of which the person was acquitted. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. <\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

{\u00b6 30} There is no support in the CODIS Methods Manual for appellant\u2019s position. The manual has no provision for the removal of a DNA profile of an individual acquitted at trial. Section 17.6 sets forth the basis for expunging a DNA profile\u2014a conviction being overturned on appeal or a sample taken in error\u2014and the procedures that need to be followed. However, section 17.6 is not self-executing. There is no mechanism set forth in the manual by which the state is automatically notified that a person\u2019s conviction has been overturned, requiring the profile of the acquitted person to be removed. Instead, the requirement of going forward is on the exonerated individual to notify CODIS that the conviction has been overturned and to seek expungement of the DNA profile. Appellant failed to do this. <\/p>\n

{\u00b6 31} There is no legislative requirement that DNA profiles obtained from lawfully obtained DNA samples be removed from CODIS on the state\u2019s initiative when the subject of the profile is acquitted at trial, and we will not create such a requirement. \u201cExclusion of extremely valuable evidence in crimes that often leave little other trace is a major social cost\u201d and \u201cthe potential for abuse in the future is not sufficiently clear to warrant adopting a rule excluding evidence from the database on the ground that it was obtained or retained beyond the authorized classifications.\u201d Smith, 744 N.E.2d at 442. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-7914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7914","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=7914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7914\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}