936 F.3d 62
1st Cir.2019Background
- In 1994 Cowels and Mims were convicted of murder and served ~20 years; Massachusetts later granted them a new trial after new DNA testing undermined evidence used at trial.
- A swab from the inside of an older condom found near the victim yielded a male DNA profile not matching Cowels or Mims; Massachusetts entered the profile into its state DNA index (SDIS) after a state court order but found no match.
- The FBI refused to upload the profile to the national database (NDIS), concluding the condom was not sufficiently forensically linked to the victim and thus the profile was not "attributable to the putative perpetrator" under the FBI NDIS Manual.
- Cowels and Mims sued in federal court seeking an order compelling the FBI to upload the profile or perform a manual (non-upload) keyboard search; the district court dismissed, holding the FBI’s decision was unreviewable (and alternatively not arbitrary and capricious).
- The First Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the FBI’s eligibility decision is reviewable, but affirmed on the merits, holding the FBI’s determination was not arbitrary and capricious given (1) the condom’s degraded condition and (2) absence of any forensic link between the condom and the victim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FBI’s decision to refuse NDIS upload is judicially reviewable | Cowels/Mims: The DNA Identification Act plus the NDIS Manual supply meaningful standards limiting FBI discretion, so decision is reviewable | FBI: Upload decisions are committed to agency discretion; Act provides no meaningful standard for judicial review | Court assumed reviewability for decision but did not decide the issue |
| Whether the FBI’s refusal to upload was arbitrary and capricious under the APA | Cowels/Mims: FBI ignored/man misapplied Manual’s "attributable to putative perpetrator" standard; factual errors (confusing inside-swab vs. condom exterior) undermine rationale | FBI: Decision rationally based on condom’s condition and lack of forensic connection to victim; manual keyboard search reserved for exigent circumstances | Held: Not arbitrary and capricious; reasons (degraded condom, no forensic link) are rational and supported the determination |
| Whether FBI must perform a manual keyboard search absent upload | Cowels/Mims: Requested manual search as alternative; argued it was appropriate here | FBI: Manual searches are exceptional and for exigent circumstances; none exist here | Held: Court accepted FBI’s view that manual searches are exceptional and no exigency justified one; appellants did not prevail on arbitrary-and-capricious claim regarding search |
| Whether appellants would be entitled to any results from NDIS comparison even if uploaded | Cowels/Mims: Would obtain comparison results to help identify true perpetrator | FBI: Even if compared, sharing results may implicate rules/limitations; separate legal issues | Held: Court did not reach/decide entitlement to any comparison information (affirmance rested on APA reviewability merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decisions to take or refrain from enforcement action may be committed to agency discretion and therefore unreviewable)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (courts may find statutes so broad that no meaningful standard exists for review)
- Boroian v. Mueller, 616 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010) (describing CODIS/NDIS/SDIS structure)
- Bos. Redevelopment Auth. v. Nat'l Park Serv., 838 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2016) (articulating arbitrary-and-capricious review principles)
- Atieh v. Riordan, 797 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 2015) (agency decisions upheld if supported by any rational view of the record)