The 4 th Amendment Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

1. The 4th Amendment Unreasonable Searches and Seizures MD v. King Fingerprints and Q-Tip swabs What is an unreasonable search?

2. The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution • Provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

3. Unreasonable searches by who? • Answer: Your U.S. Government. • Federal Agency • State Agency • Town Agency • City Agency • For example, any employee working for a Federal, State, City, Municipality, Town. • Private citizens? No. UNLESS, • The private citizen is searching you on behalf of the Government. • Otherwise, doesn’t count under the Fourth Amendment.

4. “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their personsagainst … unreasonable searches and seizures…” Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) The Supreme Court of the United States held that “a search using buccal swab to obtain defendant’s DNA sample after arrest for serious offense was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Search = buccal swab on the inner cheek Seizure = DNA collected

5. Maryland v. King. What’s the story? Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was arrested on April 10, 2009 in Wicomico County, Maryland on charges of first and second degree assault. Because King was charged with a crime of violence, the Maryland DNA Collection Act permits the local law enforcement to collect DNA samples from individuals arrested for crimes of violence. King’s DNA sample was taken during his regular booking procedures, in other words at the same time King’s fingerprints and mug shot were taken. Police used a buccal swab to insert inside King’s cheek, brushing it along the inside of King’s cheek to collect King’s DNA. The DNA sample was processed by the Maryland State Police Forensics Science Division, and analyzed by a private laboratory. The analysis of Kings DNA was uploaded to the Maryland DNA database, where a “hit” was discovered in the September 21, 2003 unsolved rape case of Vonette W., a 53 year old Salisbury, Maryland resident. The evening Vonette W. was raped, she was transported as a victim to Peninsula Regional Medical Center where she underwent a sexual assault forensic examination, and among other things, a vaginal swab was taken to collect semen DNA. The semen DNA was processed and uploaded to the Maryland DNA database. King’s DNA matched the semen sample taken during Vonette’s forensic examination. A match is called a “hit” by police and forensic scientists. On August 4, 2009, Wicomico Detectives presented the “hit” as evidence to indict King for the rape of Vonette W. The “hit” provided the police probable cause to issue a search warrant to collect a new sample of King’s DNA. The second buccal swab sample of King’s DNA confirmed that King was the suspect of the rape of Vonette W.

6. King filed a motion to suppress evidence of the first buccal swab taken at the time of the original booking when arrested for first and second degree assault on the grounds that the buccal swab collection of King’s DNA was obtained through an illegal search and seizure by the Wicomico County Police Department. King’s argument was that the Maryland DNA Act that permitted police to take a DNA sample at the time of booking, where the suspect had yet to be convicted of a crime, was in violation of King’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure of his person. King argued that the DNA was invalid and inadmissible in a court of law. A hearing was held at the Circuit Court of Wicomico County, and King’s motion was denied. The Judge held that collection of King’s DNA by way of buccal swab during booking procedures under the Maryland DNA Collection Act was constitutionally valid and therefore, the evidence of King’s DNA was admissible in a court of law. King was denied his motion to suppress his DNA evidence, and was convicted in the Circuit Court of Wicomico County of rape in the first degree. King appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals which held that taking of King’s DNA by buccal swab under the Maryland DNA Collection Act violated King’s Fourth Amendment right against the government’s use of unreasonable searches and seizures against a person. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The State of Maryland filed an application for stay of judgement pending disposition of its petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court of the United States of America granted writ of certiorari, heard the case on February 26, 2013 and decided the case on June 3, 2013. The Supreme Court held under a five to four vote, that “search using buccal swab to obtain defendant’s DNA sample after arrest for serious offense was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

7. Let’s take a look at the Supreme Court Case of Maryland v. King, 569 U. S. 435 (2013)

8. Here is a good article to READ about the case. Liptak, Adam. “Justices Allow DNA Collection After Arrest.” The New York Times. June 3, 2013. May 22, 2019. Here is another good article to READ about the case. The Editorial Board. “DNA and Suspicionless Searches.” The New York Times. June 3, 2013. May 22, 2019. Adam Liptak. “Justices Allow DNA Collection After an Arrest.” The New York Times. June 3, 2013. May 22, 2019.

9. YOU be the Judge. • The Supreme Court held that “Using a buccal swab on the inner tissue of a person’s cheek in order to obtain DNA samples is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.” But, the question presented before the Court asked, was the search unreasonable?No. Why? • Because buccal swab of King’s inner cheek was taken as part of a routine booking procedure; • Just like fingerprinting, for identification purposes, under a valid arrest with probable cause. • You be the judge. • Activity: • Take a Q-Tip and insert it into your mouth and swab the inner tissue of your cheek. • Now, take your thumb, using an ink pad, and take a fingerprint sample of your thumb print, pressing your thumb on a piece of white paper. • Read the articles about DNA collection and solving crimes. Compare, contrast, and discuss. • Is the search the same to you in regards to reasonableness? Fingerprint v. Buccal swab • Is DNA collection the same as a fingerprinting collection?What are the pros and cons to collecting DNA?

10. Here are articles on DNA collection and solving crime to help you decide as the judge. Horton, Alex. “A suspected killer eluded capture for 25 years. Then investigators got his aunt’s DNA.” The Washington Post. February 17, 2019. May 28, 2019. Gina Kolata and Heather Murphy. “The Golden State Killer Is Tracked Through a Thicket of DNA, and Experts Shudder.” The New York Times. April 27, 2018. May 28, 2019. Murphy, Heather. “Sooner or Later Your Cousin’s DNA Is Going to Solve a Murder.” The New York Times. April 25, 2019. May 28, 2019.