Legal Brief Chapter 7 Maryland v. King PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Legal Brief Chapter 7 Maryland v. King PDF

Description

CRM 322 Law of Criminal Procedure

Student Name: Athena Childers

Date: 09 March 2017 Legal Brief

1. Title and Citation: Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013) 2. Type of action: Fourth Amendment violation, specifically the seizure of DNA or bodily fluids without a search warrant or permission from the individual. 3. Facts: Alonzo Jay King Jr. was arrested for first and second degree assault. As according to Maryland police protocol, the Maryland DNA Collection Act, a DNA sample was taken from King at the time of the arrest and entered into Maryland's database. It was matched to an unsolved rape case in 2003. A Maryland officer presented the evidence to a Wicomico County grand jury, which called for an indictment, procured a warrant to obtain a second buccal DNA sample that could be used as incriminating evidence for the 2003 rape case. King filed a motion to suppress the DNA evidence, stating that it infringed upon his Fourth Amendment rights, which prohibit unreasonable searches and seizure. 4. Issue(s): Does the Fourth Amendment allow states to collect and analyze DNA from individuals arrested of sex crimes? Yes, under the Fourth Amendment, states have the right to collect DNA from individuals arrested. 5. History/Decision: King filed a motion to suppress the DNA evidence in the Circuit Court of Wicomico County. His motion was DENIED, and King was CONVICTED of first degree rape. The Maryland Court of Appeals then REVERSED the original ruling. The State of Maryland then APPEALED to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of the

United States GRANTED CERTIORARI and REVERSED the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals. 6. Reasoning: Conducting a DNA swab test as a part of the arrest procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves a legitimate state interest and is not so invasive so as to require a warrant. The routine administrative procedures that occur during a booking for an arrest do not require the same justification and the search of a location. 7 Rule of Law: The Supreme Court held that determining an arrestee's identity and criminal history is a crucial part of the arrest procedure and that a DNA test is just as valid and informative as fingerprinting. Determining an arrestee's criminal history serves the legitimate state interest of determining what level of risk the individual poses to the public and what conditions should be set on his/her release from custody....