Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Why So Contrived? Fourth Amendment Balancing, Per Se Rules, And Dna Databases After Maryland V. King, David H. Kaye
Why So Contrived? Fourth Amendment Balancing, Per Se Rules, And Dna Databases After Maryland V. King, David H. Kaye
Journal Articles
In Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of routine collection and storage of DNA samples and profiles from arrestees. In doing so, it stepped outside the usual framework that treats warrantless searches as per se unconstitutional unless they fall within specified exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements. Instead, the Court balanced various individual and state interests. Yet, as regards the state interests, the Court confined this direct balancing analysis to the perceived value of using DNA to inform certain pretrial decisions. Oddly, it avoided relying directly on DNA’s …
A Fourth Amendment Theory For Arrestee Dna And Other Biometric Databases, David H. Kaye
A Fourth Amendment Theory For Arrestee Dna And Other Biometric Databases, David H. Kaye
Journal Articles
Routine DNA sampling following a custodial arrest process is now the norm in many jurisdictions, but is it consistent with the Fourth Amendment? The few courts that have addressed the question have disagreed on the answer, but all of them seem to agree on two points: (1) the reasonableness of the practice turns on a direct form of balancing of individual and governmental interests; and (2) individuals who are convicted — and even those who are merely arrested — have a greatly diminished expectation of privacy in their identities. This Article disputes these propositions and offers an improved framework for …
Identification, Individualization, Uniqueness, David H. Kaye
Identification, Individualization, Uniqueness, David H. Kaye
Journal Articles
Criminalists and many forensic scientists concerned with the identification of trace evidence have distinguished between identification and individualization, but they have not distinguished as precisely between individualization and uniqueness. This paper clarifies these terms and discusses the relationships among identification, individualization, and uniqueness in forensic-science evidence.