Case Brief
Case Name: Maryland v. King (October 2012)
Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King, in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County, Maryland, facility, where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam. A police detective presented the matching 2009 and 2003 DNA to a grand jury, the grand jury indicted King for first-degree rape. Later in 2009, the detective obtained a search warrant and collected a second DNA sample from King that also matched the 2003 sample.
King seeks to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing that his arrest and indictment for rape were invalid as an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Alonzo Jay King claimed that the DNA Act was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court for Wicomico County denied Alonzo Jay King motion to suppress, and upholding DNA Act and finding Alonzo Jay King guilty of rape and sentenced to life in prison.
Procedural History: Alonzo Jay King was accused of first and second degree assault charges and rape charges dating back from a case in 2003, form an unsolved rape case. King suppressed the DNA match, arguing that the Act violated the Fourth Amendment, but the Circuit Court Judge found the law constitutional. King was convicted of rape. The Maryland Court of Appeals set aside the conviction, finding it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that 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.
Issue: When state officials collect and analyze a DNA sample taken from a person who has been arrested for,
Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King, in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County, Maryland, facility, where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam. A police detective presented the matching 2009 and 2003 DNA to a grand jury, the grand jury indicted King for first-degree rape. Later in 2009, the detective obtained a search warrant and collected a second DNA sample from King that also matched the 2003 sample.
King seeks to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing that his arrest and indictment for rape were invalid as an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Alonzo Jay King claimed that the DNA Act was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court for Wicomico County denied Alonzo Jay King motion to suppress, and upholding DNA Act and finding Alonzo Jay King guilty of rape and sentenced to life in prison.
Procedural History: Alonzo Jay King was accused of first and second degree assault charges and rape charges dating back from a case in 2003, form an unsolved rape case. King suppressed the DNA match, arguing that the Act violated the Fourth Amendment, but the Circuit Court Judge found the law constitutional. King was convicted of rape. The Maryland Court of Appeals set aside the conviction, finding it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that 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.
Issue: When state officials collect and analyze a DNA sample taken from a person who has been arrested for,