Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
No Longer Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How Ohio Violates The Fourth Amendment Through Familial Dna Searches Of Felony Arrestees, Jordan Mason
Cleveland State Law Review
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court legalized DNA collection of all felony arrestees upon arrest through its decision in Maryland v. King. Since then, the State of Ohio has broadened the use of arrestee DNA by subjecting it to familial DNA searches. Ohio’s practice of conducting familial DNA searches of arrestee DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because arrestees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that is extracted from a familial DNA search and it fails both the totality of the circumstances and the special needs tests. Further, these tests go against the intention of the …
People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin
People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Dna Storage Banks: The Importance Of Preserving Dna Evidence To Allow For Transparency And The Preservation Of Justice, Cristina Martin
Dna Storage Banks: The Importance Of Preserving Dna Evidence To Allow For Transparency And The Preservation Of Justice, Cristina Martin
Chicago-Kent Law Review
What is the duty to preserve information in today’s society? In order for humanity to evolve, change and flourish in the future, society needs to preserve its information from the past. In the criminal justice field, preservation of evidence has special significance. DNA evidence in particular has become a helpful aid for innocent defendants who have been improperly imprisoned. Over the past twenty years, the number of exonerations of imprisoned criminal defendants has increased dramatically. With the advancement of technology, old, previously untestable or improperly tested DNA evidence will need to be retested. However, most states do not have proper …
You Have The Right To Be Free From Unwanted Bodily Intrusion--Unless Of Course There Is A Court Order, Tara Laterza
You Have The Right To Be Free From Unwanted Bodily Intrusion--Unless Of Course There Is A Court Order, Tara Laterza
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Blueprint: Critiques Of The Fingerprint And Abandonment Paradigms Utilized To Reject An Expectation Of Privacy In Dna, Avi Goldstein
The Blueprint: Critiques Of The Fingerprint And Abandonment Paradigms Utilized To Reject An Expectation Of Privacy In Dna, Avi Goldstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Maryland V. King: Sacrificing The Fourth Amendment To Build Up The Dna Database, Stephanie B. Noronha
Maryland V. King: Sacrificing The Fourth Amendment To Build Up The Dna Database, Stephanie B. Noronha
Maryland Law Review
No abstract provided.
Sacrificing Liberty For Security: North Carolina's Unconstitutional Search And Seizure Of Arrestee Dna, Michael J. Crook
Sacrificing Liberty For Security: North Carolina's Unconstitutional Search And Seizure Of Arrestee Dna, Michael J. Crook
Campbell Law Review
This Comment examines the constitutionality of North Carolina’s DNA Database Act of 2010. The Act is a newly passed expansion of the existing state DNA database, and this Comment argues that North Carolina’s expansion authorizes a constitutionally impermissible, mandatory, suspicionless, and warrantless search and seizure of DNA and the information contained therein. With warrantless searches, the default rule is that they are “per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment— subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” The Act should not survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny because it does not qualify as a well-delineated exception to the warrant requirement: …
Dna Fingerprinting - Justifying The Special Need For The Fourth Amendment's Intrusion Into The Zone Of Privacy, Deborah F. Barfield
Dna Fingerprinting - Justifying The Special Need For The Fourth Amendment's Intrusion Into The Zone Of Privacy, Deborah F. Barfield
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.When claims arise against the government's Fourth Amendment transgressions, usually those claims turn on interpretation of the term "reasonable." Traditionally, a search and seizure conducted under the authority of a judicial warrant for "probable cause" is unquestionably reasonable.In some, albeit very limited, types of searches reasonableness is met with at least "individualized suspicion."When searches intrude into the human body, however, they implicate a person's most deep-rooted expectation of privacy - the right to be left alone.