Supreme Court takes up DNA and sentencing cases

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider whether a state may collect DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of violent crimes, in a case that may have national implications for law enforcement.

Maryland is appealing an April 24 decision by the state Court of Appeals overturning the 2010 conviction and life sentence of Alonzo Jay King for a rape committed seven years earlier, and prior to his 2009 arrest for assault.

A DNA sample taken following that arrest without a warrant had linked him to the earlier crime.

In overturning King's conviction, the Maryland appeals court said the state's DNA Collection Act violated the ban on unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That Maryland law lets police take DNA samples from people arrested for violent crimes, attempted violent crimes, burglary and attempted burglary.

In July, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts put that lower court ruling on hold, allowing the law to remain in effect, while Maryland appealed the King case.

Roberts said at the time that there was a "fair prospect" that the Supreme Court would reverse the ruling, and that the ruling subjected Maryland to "irreparable harm."

The chief justice said the court of appeals ruling conflicted with three other courts that had upheld laws similar to Maryland's DNA collection law.

He also said the appeals court ruling had national implications because it would, if upheld, prevent the FBI from getting the samples for a national database.

Collecting DNA samples "implicates an important feature of day-to-day law enforcement practice" in half of all U.S. states and the federal government, Roberts said.

See the original post:
Supreme Court takes up DNA and sentencing cases