Elizabeth Haskell v. Edmund Brown, Jr.
669 F.3d 1049
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- California enacted the DNA Act in 1998 to enable DNA testing for identification of offenders and missing persons.
- The 2004 Amendment (Prop. 69) expanded testing to include any adult felon arrestee immediately after arrest, during booking, or as soon as practicable, before release on bail or trial.
- DNA collection uses a buccal swab; the DNA profile is used for identification and uploaded to CODIS with limited, tightly controlled use.
- Plaintiffs—Haskell, Ento, Lyons, and Desai—alleged the 2004 Amendment violates the Fourth Amendment and due process and sought a preliminary injunction.
- District court denied the injunction; plaintiffs appealed, challenging facially and as-applied constitutionality.
- Court balanced privacy interests of arrestees against government interests in identification, solving past crimes, preventing future crimes, and exonerating the innocent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 69 as applied to felony arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment | Haskell argues the arrestee DNA collection is unconstitutional. | California contends the program is reasonable under the totality of circumstances. | No Fourth Amendment violation as applied. |
| Whether the challenge is facial or as-applied and the impact on facial challenge | Plaintiffs argue the statute is unconstitutional in all applications. | Statutory scheme is constitutional as applied and facial challenge fails if applied constitutionally. | As-applied success suffices; facial challenge rejected. |
| Whether Friedman v. Boucher controls the outcome | Friedman requires finding Prop. 69 unconstitutional. | Friedman is distinguishable and not controlling here. | Friedman does not control; analysis proceeds under totality of the circumstances. |
| Whether the totality-of-circumstances framework supports constitutionality | Arrestee privacy outweighs government interests; DNA use is too broad. | Interests in identification, solving past crimes, preventing future crimes, and exonerating the innocent outweigh privacy concerns. | Balanced interests favor government; the 2004 Amendment is constitutional. |
| Whether arrestee privacy interests are diminished appropriately and DNA info limits are adequate | DNA contains more information and risks misuse; arrestees should have greater protections. | DNA profile contains limited junk DNA markers used only for identification with strict safeguards. | Privacy interests are diminished and outweighed by identified governmental interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rise v. Oregon, 59 F.3d 1556 (9th Cir.1995) (upheld convicted felons' DNA collection balancing privacy against law enforcement needs)
- United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc; DNA identification as minimal intrusion with enforcement interests)
- United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir.2007) (upheld federal DNA collection for felons under totality of circumstances)
- Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.2011) (California prison DNA collection for identification upheld under Fourth Amendment)
- Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847 (9th Cir.2009) (unconsented DNA collection from arrestee controlled; distinguished herein)
- Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985) (fingerprinting requires consent, warrant, or probable cause in certain contexts)
- Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969) (fingerprinting without probable cause in an investigatory context violates Fourth Amendment)
- Ortiz-Hernandez, 427 F.3d 567 (9th Cir.2005) (distinguishes identification vs. investigative purposes for fingerprints)
- Garcia-Beltran, 389 F.3d 864 (9th Cir.2004) (fingerprints may be taken for identification, not solely for investigation)