Brief filed: 02/01/2013
Maryland v. King
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 12-207
Decision below 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. Apr. 24, 2012).
Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?
A state’s search for DNA samples from an arrestee’s body without a warrant or any basis for suspecting the DNA is connected to a crime is unreasonable, regardless of the balance of interests. Physically intrusive searches like the collection of DNA from inside an arrestee’s body require a warrant and probable cause. The balance of interests alone does no determine reasonableness even for less intrusive bodily searches. The state’s collection of DNA from arrestees falls outside the limited circumstances permitting warrantless, suspicionless searches. Accordingly, the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Search, Seizure & Criminal Litigation (2018)
Racial Profiling & the 4th Amendment (2017) – Featuring Juval O. Scott - Video DVD
Suppress It! Litigating 4th Amendment Rights (2016)
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update - CD-ROM
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery (2020)
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
Lisa Blatt, Anthony J. Franze and Sarah M. Harris, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC; Jonathan Hacker, Washington, DC.