The Current DNA Technology - Essay Example

Maryland v. King Introduction The current DNA technology as used in forensics is one of the most significant scientific milestones in our times. The full potential of its application in medicine and legal jurisdiction has been incredible. Its reliability in proving identity remains one of the undisputed methods in existence. Since its inception in legal cases in England 1986, the law enforcement has greatly benefited from the technology. There has been a shift from the use of fingerprints to the use of DNA. The results of this have been incredible; convictions and acquittal of judges have been enormous. However, one of the most controversial rulings in was a case of King v. Maryland. While the application of the DNA sample identification has been on the rise, this case provided a rare legal argument on the constitutionality of unwarranted DNA sample collection in regard to the Fourth Amendment. Background of the Case Alonzo King was arrested for assault on April 2009 by the Maryland police. In line with the Maryland DNA collection Act, the police took a DNA sample swab from his cheek (Bender 78). The Act allows police to collect DNA swab from any suspect of the crime with or without consent. The issue is certainly one of the most controversial enforcement that some scholars disagree with because it borders abuse of privacy. In what came to be a monumental case, King v. Maryland, the controversial Maryland laws appeared to contradict the Fourth Amendment (Bender 86). The Fourth Amendment prevents a warrantless collection of DNA from a suspect regardless of the nature of the crime he committed. Facts and Legal Issues Following arrest of King and subsequent collection of DNA sample by police, several legal issues emerged. Firstly, there were questions regarding Maryland Laws on warrantless collection of data. While the law gives police powers to collect sample without any warrant from the court, the Fourth Amendment of United States constitution vehemently requires any DNA sample collection from any suspect should be accompanied by court warrant. The suspect was arrested for assault; DNA collected, and it matched with one of the rape case that was unresolved(Bender 81). After matching with an already pending court case, the police sought confirmatory DNA sample that also matched with those in "cold" cases. The second buccal swab merged with brow swab in the law enforcement database leading to additional charges of rape due to the new evidence from DNA sample. The court in Kings case held an opinion that the warrantless collection of DNA was in accordance with Maryland laws. The ruling in 2009 presented one of the controversial verdicts in the U.S DNA sample collection laws (Bender 91). Maryland DNA Act Enacted in 1994, the law authorizes police to collect DNA sample from the suspect of any crime without a warrant. The law was created purpose to assist police in investigating crime, notably in identification of human remains, to identify missing persons and other purposes. In 2008, the law jurisdiction was expanded to allow police collect sample for burglary and violent crimes at the time of arrest. The law enforcers, therefore, have authority to collect sample, analyze and the results profiled in the FBI CODIS database (Bender 94). The law provides that in case of any prove claims, a second DNA test should be undertaken. Notably, the law states that it is the second DNA test that is ordered by the court that would be admissible as evidence. The application of the law raised several legal issues during King v. Maryland hearing. Ruling and Summary of Oral Argument At the Maryland Supreme Court, his sexual assault and rape trial, the court denied King a motion to suppress the DNA portion of the evidence in seeking acquittal from rape charges. Despite pleading not guilty for charges and preserved his constitutionality of his DNA sample collection by the police. In his argument, he stated that it violated the Fourth Amendment. In 5-4 ruling, Justice Kennedy noted that the suspicion less collection of a DNA sample for those suspected for heinous crimes did not contradict the Fourth Amendment that denies the police warrantless and invasiveness of a suspect (Bender 96). In addition, the court ruling observed that there was a reasonable search that was well intentioned to help the government secure crucial evidence for the serious crimes the suspect was being accused. In Law, the reason of pressing search that include invasive DNA sample collection is measured against the government interest and a degree in which the search intrudes the privacy of a suspect. The defendant argued that the procedure was invasive and failed to uphold his privacy as a suspect entitled to the right of privacy. While appreciating the role of police in apprehending the crime, the suspect noted in his argument that the nature of handling suspect amounted to physical abuse, intrusion of privacy and the entire process reveals incredibility in police investigations. Moreover, the suspect argued on the credibility of the DNA sample posing a serious challenge to ethics in police investigation laboratories. However, the court observed that the arrestee should expect a diminished space for privacy because some of the crime suspicion may demand a suspect intrusion for the best interest of justice to the victims (Bender 97). The ruling made it clear that the governments interest of arresting, identifying and investigating of potential criminals outweighed the rights of privacy of the suspect. In relation to DNA collection, Justice Kennedy observed that the government interest in the case weighed strongly in favor of the DNA collection (Bender 97). In proving its position, the bench analogized DNA sampling with other modes of identification that includes taking fingerprints. In essence, the purpose of the procedure was for mere identification purpose and not a victimization strategy as argued by the defense. DNA identification was heralded by the court as the most effective mode of identification; this upheld the position that the prosecutor in the case argued. Justice Scalas four dissenting voices made a number of observations on the case. Firstly, the dissenting judges while appreciating the identification of the suspect through DNA test believed that without a warrant it would jeopardize constitutionality. In their oral submission, they argued that Fourth Amendment was categorical in forbidding suspicions searches. While agreeing that the law provided for exclusion in upholding government interest, Scala challenged that the government interest was limited to the detection of crime, but not the conviction on arrest by police. Besides, they observed that the law provided suspects right to plead for their charges before subjecting them to invasive procedure of collection of DNA sample. Scala in his disagreement with the majority ruling stated that, after analyzing issues, it was evident that the police search was indiscriminate and contradicted exception threshold as envisioned in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S constitution (Bender 98). They observe that the suspect right to fair hearing would be jeopardizing if the system of collection of evidence would follow a similar pattern in the future. In addition, the case magnitude in his submission did not meet the government interest. Court Resolution While admitting the importance of upholding morality and professionalism in collection of DNA samples and subsequent effects on the case, the majority judges were convinced that the police reasons for unwarranted search were based on reasonable grounds. In comparison to the significant government interest, the unique effectiveness of DNA identification and intrusion of the cheek swab was minimal to raise the alarm of privacy intrusion. In law, reasonableness must be considered in relation to persons legitimacy expectation for privacy that often diminishes when taken to police custody (Bender 98). In essence, the suspects of heinous crimes indicated in Maryland Law have their rights to privacy greatly diminished. Allowing more space for freedom especially when investigation if ongoing will jeopardize the process of gathering evidence and the ultimate result of the case. Furthermore, the application of this law differs greatly with those of otherwise law-abiding motorists. Evidently, the reasonability of circumstances requires two other factors. The first as observed during Indianapolis v. Edmond that stated that the procedure like buccal swab does not amount to a reasonable ground to protect privacy abuse. In addition, the Schmerber v. California 384 U.S allows non-abrasive search since they do not increase indignity that is already attendant in normal arrest (Bender 100). Based on the two cases, King lost his ground of argument of the abrasiveness and privacy claims as stated during his oral submission. The most convincing opinion that the verdict borrowed significantly from it is the fact that the DNA samples CODIS loci as applied in the test. It revealed that the result did not intrude on Kings privacy in any manner that make his identification unconstitutional. In addition, the procedure of obtaining and data processing about the forensic sample adhered to Electronic Privacy Information center (EPIC) stipulation (Bender 100). The DNA part obtained did not show any potential of revealing his private medical information. In addition, even if they had potential to reveal any private information, that would not be tested for that end. In essence, an invasive surgery process in forensics may raise serious privacy concern and as such they require a warrant from the court. Personal Views I find the process helpful to the law enforcers in three key ways. Firstly, it allows them to collect samples at the scene of the crime that is important in seeking immediate execution of the case in cases such as rape and homicides. Many at times, the legal process of seeking a warrant and subsequent execution of warrant delays hearing and declaration of judgment. Secondly, unlimited powers to collect DNA samples allow a systematic study of the suspect in relation to the past cases. This quite became beneficial during King v. Maryland. It ensures that even the ongoing investigations may be revived by matching the DNA results. Lastly, the process allows categorization of heinous crimes that is important in ensuring speedy execution; it would be deleterious to have profound privacy protection to the suspects of heinous crimes. The laws are created to protect the victims and suspects, thus while the law recognizes their innocence, they should be able to accept limited privacy in order to facilitate evidence collection and timely ruling. In respect to Kings v. Maryland, I agree that a suspect of such serious crimes should be searched even without a warrant. This is fundamental in facilitating a expeditious execution or acquittal. While it is important to safeguard privacy, there should be limited privacy accorded to suspects of particular crimes. Conclusion While the case hugely centered on the Marylands DNA collection Act, the court decision appeared non-specific whether the law was applicable for any crime or serious cases. Arguably, the law envisions a state where handling of suspects will be based on the perceived seriousness of the crime. In addition, it is narrowed to a particular crime posing questions on the ability of the law to protect innocent persons who are erroneously identified as a suspect. Besides, there should be a mechanism within law that allows samples collected to be tested for DNA identification while the suspect is represented by either a private doctor to represent the suspect. It is only by allowing representation in the collection and subsequent identification process that the credibility of such controversial samples would be guaranteed. Works Cited Bender, Gerald M, and Jason T. Seay. "Maryland V. King: The Constitutionality of Dna Collection for Law Enforcement Purposes. Police Chief. N.p., 0.9 (2013). 78-101. Print. Read More