Facts
- Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was arrested in Maryland in 2009 for first- and second-degree assault and booked into custody.
- During booking, officers collected a buccal (cheek) swab DNA sample under the Maryland DNA Collection Act, which authorized DNA collection from persons arrested for certain violent crimes and burglaries.
- King’s DNA profile was entered into the state database and matched DNA from an unsolved 2003 rape.
- A grand jury indicted King for the rape; police obtained a second buccal swab for evidentiary use.
- King moved to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing the initial warrantless DNA collection violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied suppression; King was convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Act’s arrestee-DNA provisions unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
- Whether the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless collection and analysis of an arrestee’s DNA by cheek swab, as part of routine booking for a serious offense supported by probable cause.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.
- The Court held that taking and analyzing a cheek swab from a person lawfully arrested and held for a serious offense is a reasonable Fourth Amendment search when conducted as part of standard booking, similar to fingerprinting and photographing.
- The Court emphasized the minimal physical intrusion of a buccal swab and the limited nature of the DNA analysis used for identification.
- The dissent (Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) argued the practice was suspicionless evidence-gathering for unrelated crimes and violated the Fourth Amendment’s bar on searching for evidence without particularized cause.
Legal Principles
- A buccal swab for DNA is a Fourth Amendment “search,” but its validity may be assessed under a general reasonableness balancing approach in the context of a lawful custodial arrest for a serious offense.
- For arrestees lawfully held on probable cause, privacy expectations are reduced as to routine administrative procedures incident to arrest and detention.
- DNA identification may be treated as an extension of established booking identification methods (fingerprinting and photographing) when used to confirm identity and connect the arrestee to law enforcement records.
- Reasonableness may be supported by the method’s minimal intrusion and by statutory limits and safeguards restricting collection, analysis, retention, and use of arrestee DNA.
Conclusion
The Court held that Maryland’s warrantless collection and analysis of a cheek swab DNA sample from a serious-offense arrestee during booking is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, analogizing DNA identification to traditional booking procedures and applying a balancing of reduced arrestee privacy against government interests in identification and custody-related decisionmaking.