The DNA Fingerprint Act, enacted in 2006, authorized the Attorney General to implement this reform, while the Adam Walsh Child Pro- tection and Safety Act of 2006 further amend- ed the statute to its current form. See 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (“The Attorney General may, as pre- scribed by the Attorney General in regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted or from non-United States persons who are detained un- der the authority of the United States.”). The rule implementing this authority went into effect on January 9, 2009. See 28 C.F.R. § 28.12, as


8 9


amended by rulemaking at 73 Fed. Reg. 74932. 10


See 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(5). 11


Mission, Federal Bureau of Investigation (No- vember, 06, 2012), http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/


lab/codis/codis 12


(West 2011). 14


ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE: DNA EVI-


DENCE 17 (3d ed. 2007). 13


Id.; see also VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 20, § 1932 Federal Bureau of Investigation (November,


06, 2012), http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/co- dis/ndis-statistics/ (explaining that “[u]ltimately, the success of the CODIS program will be mea- sured by the crimes it helps to solve. CODIS’s primary metric, the “Investigation Aided,” tracks the number of criminal investigations where CO- DIS has added value to the investigative pro-


cess”). 15


Id. 16


Sarah Hammond, Lawmakers are Expanding the Use of Forensic Technology to Battle Crime, (June 10, 2012) http://www.ncsl.org/issues-re-


search/justice/the-dna-factor.aspx 17


Jan. 5, 2012. 18


Mal Leary, Maine May Expand DNA Testing Despite Opposition To Costs, BANGOR DAILY NEWS,


Thirteen of the twenty-eight states collect


from all persons arrested for any felony crime, while the other fifteen states limit collection toa subset of felonies (typically involving violence or sexual assault). See National Institute of Justice, Collecting DNA From Arrestees : Implementa- tion Lessons, NIJ Journal No. 270 (June 2012). Furthermore, eleven states require an arraign- ment or judicial determination of probable cause


to occur before a sample can be collected. Id. 19


dna-sampling-challenge/ 20


21 22


Lazar, supra, p. 80. Id.


Id. (citing Bruce Lambert, Guiliani Backs DNA Testing of Newborns for Identification, N.Y.


VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 20, § 1931; see also 1997, No. 160 (Adj. Sess.), § 1 (effective April 29,


TIMES, Dec. 17, 1998, B5 at 80). 23


1998). 24


26 27


1998). 25


VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 20, § 1932(12)(A)-(Q) (West Id. at § 1932(12)(R).


Id. at § 1932(12)(S). Gagne v. Gorczyk, No. 78-2-00 Wncv (Vt. Su-


per. Ct. Mar. 22, 2002) (Katz, J.) slip op., 27


State v. Martin, 184 Vt. 23, 28 (2008) (John- son, J., dissenting); see also VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 20, § 1933(a) (Cum. Supp. 2007) (stating, “the fol- lowing persons shall submit a DNA sample: (1) A person convicted in a court in this state of a des-


ignated crime on or after April, 29, 1998”). 29


ing); see also VT. CONST. ch. 1, art. 11. 30


31 32


Id.


Id. at 27; see also VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 20, § 1935(g) (explaining that the Vermont Supreme Court is the venue to hear an appeal as a matter


28


Martin, 184 Vt. at 30 (Johnson, J., dissent- Id. at 28.


David Kravets, ACLU Says Extracting DNA


from Suspects Unconstitutional (Oct. 11, 2012), http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/


See 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(1) (2006).


DNA sample). 33


of right from a decision on a motion to require a Id. at 31 (citing State v. Berard, 154 Vt. 306,


310-11 (1990)). In Berard, the Court specifical- ly declined to follow Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Fourth Amendment, conclud- ing that the particular line of precedent had “derogate[d] the central role of the judiciary” in search and seizure jurisprudence. Berard, 154 Vt.


At 310. 34


36 37 38 39 40


v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665-66 (1989). 35


Id. at 32. Id. at 35. Id.


Id. at 36-37.


652, 668-69 (2d Cir. 2005)). 41


42


267, 279 (N.J. 2007) 43


44 45 46 47 48


Id. at 39 Id.


Id. at 39-40. Id. at 38.


Id. at 41 (explaining the feared “analysis”


simply results in a numeric identifier…that re- veals nothing other than the identity of the per- son from whom a particular sample was taken);


see also 20 V.S.A. § 1932(4). 49


(2000). 50


51 52


Id. at 43.


Id. The Court went on to bolster its analysis, noting that DNA samples were particularly useful at identifying information because “of the many methods of determining identity, DNA is more accurate and far less susceptible to the various methods of deception employed by wrongdo- ers.” Id. at 45. Because DNA is less subject to manipulation, it also has a “concomitant ability


to conclusively exonerate the innocent.” Id. 53


Id. at 45; see also Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir. 1992)(“[W]hen a suspect is ar- rested upon probable cause, his identification becomes a matter of legitimate state interest


VT. STAT. ANN. tit., 20, § 1933(a)(2); see also § 1933(b) (stating “[a]t the time of arraignment, the court shall set a date and time for the person


and he can hardly claim privacy in it.”). 54


to submit a DNA sample”). 55


Id. at § 1933(a)(2).


56 57


VT. STAT. ANN. tit., 20, § 1940(a)(5). See Medina, supra, at p. 3; Hewitt, et. al, su-


pra, at p. 4; Abernathy, et. al, supra, at p. 13. This is undoubtedly correct, particularly under the Supreme Court’s new “trespass theory” of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v.


Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). 58


Id.


59 60 61 62 63


Hewitt, et. al, supra, at p. 4. Id. at 8. Id. at 10. Id. at 14.


na, slip op., at 12). 64


65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75


Id. at 13.


Abernathy, et. al, supra, at 6-11. Id. at 6. Id. Id. Id.


Id. at 7-8 Id. at 7 Id. at 8. Id. at 9. Id.


THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • WINTER 2013 www.vtbar.org


Abernathy, et. al, supra, at 22. (citing Medi- Medina, at 11.


Id. at 42; see also In re R.H., 171 Vt. 227, 238 Id.


Id. at 37 (quoting Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d Id.


Id. at 36 (citing State v. O’Hagen, 914 A.2d Id. at 38.


Id. at 31; see also Nat’l Treasury Emp. Union Id. (quoting Berard 154 Vt. at 310-11).


76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83


Id. Id. at 11.


Id. at 9-11. Id. Id.


Abernathy, et. al, supra, at 25. Id. at 25.


Ct. June 29, 2012)( Zimmerman, J.), slip op. 84


85 86 87 88 89


Id. at 2. Id. at 2. Id. at 4. Id. at 4.


Dave Gram, Court to Hear Case on DNA Col- lection: Vt. Law Would Allow State To Swab Prior to Conviction, VALLEY NEWS, August 20, 2012, at


A1. 90


Martin, 184 Vt. at 35. (Johnson, J., dissent-


ing). 91


Brief for Appellant State of Vermont at 27, Nos. 2012-087, 2012-101, 2012-102, 2012-103, 2012-207, 2012-309, 2012-231 (Vt. November 5,


2012). 92


94 95


81 (2001). 93


ment) 96


ing). 98


99


Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, Id. at 83.


Id. at 83 n.20.


Cir. 2006). 97


Id. at 88 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judg- United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Martin, 184 Vt. at 56 (Johnson, J., dissent- Hewitt, et. al, at 6.


Joan Owen, Vermont Statewide Crimi- nal Court Number of People, at Least 1 Felony Charge Arraigned and Convicted # Days From Arraignment to Disposition By County, Earli- est Year of Disposition and Shortest Disposition Time, Vermont Center for Justice Research, Au-


gust 12, 2012, at p. 1-3. 100


Id. 101


Joan Owen, Vermont Statewide Crimi- nal Court Number of People, at Least 1 Felony Charge Arraigned and Convicted by County and Earliest Year of Disposition, Vermont Center for


Justice Research, August 12, 2012. 102


Hewitt, et. al, at 14, at p. 1.


103 Hewitt, et. al, supra, at 10; see also Aberna- Hewitt, et. al, at 10.


thy, et. al., at 16; Medina, at 8. 104


105 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, (2012). 106 VT. STAT. ANN. tit., 20, § 1934. Id.


107


108 Martin, 184 Vt. at 60-61(Johnson, J., dissent- Id. at 61.


ing). 109


110 Medina, at 13.


111 United States v. Stewart, 468 F. Supp. 2d Compare Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049


261, 281 (D. Mass. 2007). 112


(9th Cir. 2012), and United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010); with People v. Buza, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011), and In


re C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Minn. 2006). 113


King v. State, 422 Md. 353, 30 A.3d 193


(2011) opinion after grant of cert., 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012), reconsideration denied (May 18, 2012); see also Maryland v. King, _ S.


Ct. _, 2012 WL 3064878 (U.S. July 30, 2012). 114


Maryland v. King, 2012 WL 3064878, at 1.


State v. Hartz, No. 912-8-11 Wncr (Vt. Super. Gerrow, et. al, supra, at 5.


A Bridge Too Far: The Upcoming Mandatory DNA Sampling of Arrestees


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36