Case Analysis : Padgett V. Donald 41

In Maryland, police officers are permitted to collect DNA from suspects who are arrested for crimes of violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. This has proven to be effective in identifying criminals. One of the criminals that was caught using DNA evidence, Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was extremely dissatisfied when he was linked to and charged for another crime when he was arrested and charged for assault. When his DNA was taken, law enforcement officers found that his DNA matched the DNA evidence of a previous rape case. Because of this discovery, King received the life sentence and decided to appeal his case, arguing that the MDCA (Maryland DNA Collection Act) was unconstitutional and violated the Fourth Amendment. The fundamental question

The Southside Strangler: The Advent of DNA Exploration and Testing Forever Changed the Criminal Justice System

April 10, 2009, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with first and second degree assault. According the booking procedure in Maryland along with the Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) King was photographed, fingerprinted, and his cheek was swabbed for a DNA sample. Only 28 other states participate in DNA swab laws. Soon after King’s DNA was processed it was matched to an open rape case from 2003. King and his attorney moved to suppress the DNA arguing that his DNA was obtained through violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The attorney moved to suppress based on the fact that King’s DNA was obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure. His motion was denied and King was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. King appealed his ruling on the grounds that the Maryland DNA Collection Act is unconstitutional. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in the favor of King, ruling that the MDCA is unconstitutional. The case reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court justices voted 5 to 4 that the Maryland DNA Collection act is constitutional. This

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

When assessing Fourth Amendment challenges to blood and DNA extraction and evaluation, Samson v. California remains essential to understand the evolution of the Fourth Amendment. In Samson v. California, a law enforcement officer, familiar with a defendant’s parole status from a prior encounter, searched a man without a warrant. The officer soon discovered methamphetamine concealed in a cigarette box while searching the parolee’s car. The officer convicted Samson, the parolee, with drug possession charges. In argument, Samson insisted the drugs were inadmissible as evidence, furthermore the search had violated his Fourth Amendment rights and violated his right to privacy. Samson v. California reached the Supreme Court to decide whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from conducting a warrantless search of a person who was

Should Federal Agents be allowed to collect DNA from anyone arrested? This is a controversial issue. In my opinion, DNA is a very powerful and useful tool because many sex crimes go unsolved because of lack of evidence, but if federal agents can look in a database where DNA samples are stored and compare it to anyone who was arrested especially those who committed sex crimes more crimes would be solved. Many say DNA testing violates suspects rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. DNA testing has toppled the way federal agents gather evidence in various criminal cases, particularly assault and homicide and thus had an expansive effect on a lot of people past cases. In this paper I am going to address

In previous cases, the collection of DNA samples was ruled constitutional by state courts. For instance in the 2004 Maryland v. Raines case, felon Charles Raines was forced to turn in his DNA test, linking him to a sexual assault case. Maryland’s Court of Appeals declared

This article was written only a little over two months ago, therefore it is still very relevant. The federal laws regarding DNA testing in criminal justice have not changed since this article was written. Madeleine Baran is an

DNA testing became more prominent in 1989 and defendants that were once found guilty were being exonerated. Gary Dotson was the first to be incarcerated in 1979 due to serology evidence collected blood typing was conducted. After several years, of false imprisonment, further testing was done by conducting a Polymer

In 2002, the court decided the right of physicians to recommend marijuana for medical purposes in the state of California. Conant v. McCaffrey case was the first case to authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Marijuana is a controversial issue in America because people disagree about whether or not it should be legal to use medicinally in every state.

Analytical laboratories from Indiana found that DNA arrestee laws could annually save the state $20 million in judicial and law enforcement expenses alone (Taking). This amount is found when factoring in the amount of crime that would be prevented if such laws passed. Researchers argue that criminals most often tend to be repeat offenders and with the DNA arrestee laws, each felony conviction would prevent an average of 7-8 crimes (Taking). Equally important, each conviction would potentially have a fiscal benefit of approximately $13,000 (Taking). Even though it may seem that the additional tests, which will be needed after DNA arrestee laws are put into effect, will cost the taxpayers, it will actually save them money in the end. Instead of having to pay for all of the additional investigations for crimes committed by repeat offenders, they will only have to pay for the first couple prior to the criminal being

The first, the law forbids the sealing, return, or destruction of DNA samples and DNA records held by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, if the criminal proceedings were supported by probable cause (McKnight, 2005). The second, allows expunged records to be opened if either of the following circumstances exist: “any criminal record may be opened upon a court’s ex parte order for purposes of a subsequent criminal investigation, prosecution, or sentencing; and a criminal conviction record may be opened without a court order in order to evaluate a prospective employee of a criminal justice agency” (McKnight, 2005, p.

Maryland V. King- A man arrested for assault was taken into custody and a cheek swab was taken and matched a rape case and was convicted. This man, King, said it was unconstitutional violating his Fourth Amendment rights. It was ruled constitutional. The holding: When police officers make an arrest of a suspect supported by a probable cause to hold the suspect for a serious charge and bring him into custody, taking tests such as saliva swabs, photographing, and fingerprinting, a legal procedure which is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This is important because if you are suspected for a serious crime, DNA could be taken from you without your

In the United States, DNA testing is mostly associated with criminal investigations and pop culture. In the police detective procedural TV series CSI, the sequencing of DNA from evidence collected at crime scenes takes center stage. In the American workplace, cafeteria conversation often veers into the merits of using DNA testing during the hiring and retention process.

Fingerprinting and Blood testing are essential methods of identification to prove if a defendant committed a crime or if there is a relationship between victim and defendant. Information of this nature is critical to criminal proceedings; however, there is no testimony being taken; therefore, counseling is not needed because a defendant cannot refuse such testing on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. "Fingerprint identification evidence is equated with guilt, while the lack of fingerprint identification evidence infers a weakness in the prosecution's case" (Lawson, 2013). “Fingerprint identification is one of the most important criminal investigation tools due to two features: their persistence and their uniqueness. A person’s