Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris
745 F.3d 1269
9th Cir.2014Background
- California Penal Code § 296 (Prop. 69) requires DNA buccal swabs from all adults arrested for or charged with any felony, with samples processed into CODIS; failure to comply is a misdemeanor.
- Plaintiffs (a certified class of persons arrested/charged with felonies but not convicted) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining DNA collection as unconstitutional facially and as applied.
- District court denied the preliminary injunction; plaintiffs appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
- After briefing but before disposition by the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court decided Maryland v. King, upholding DNA collection at booking as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that King controls the broad class challenge; they asked the Ninth Circuit to enter a narrower injunction for certain offenses, which the panel declined to do and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CA’s felony-arrestee DNA collection statute is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment | The statute authorizes unreasonable searches of persons arrested for felonies, including those never charged/convicted, and applies broadly to minor felonies | CA law is a legitimate booking procedure like fingerprinting/photographing and is constitutional under King | Denied: King controls; statute constitutional as applied to class of felony arrestees |
| Whether statute is unconstitutional as applied to persons arrested but not charged/convicted | Taking and retaining DNA of uncharged/unconvicted arrestees violates privacy and Fourth Amendment rights | Government interest in identification at booking applies regardless of subsequent charging; collection at booking is reasonable | Denied: King permits collection at booking without requiring post-arrest charging/conviction |
| Whether breadth (all felonies vs. Maryland’s enumerated "serious crimes") makes statute materially different from King | CA’s coverage of all felonies (including wobblers/minor felonies) renders King inapplicable | A felony is a serious crime; King’s reasoning does not depend on enumerated crimes and applies to felony arrests generally | Denied: No meaningful distinction—King’s rationale extends to felony arrestees |
| Whether retention/expungement differences from Maryland make CA law unconstitutional | Indefinite retention (no automatic expungement) increases privacy intrusion and distinguishes CA from King | CA allows discretionary/party-initiated expungement and retention differences do not change the minor-intrusion analysis in King | Denied: Expungement regime not constitutionally dispositive under King |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff must show all four Winter factors)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (upholding DNA cheek swab at booking as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (context of detention can justify procedures at booking)
- Bull v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (appellate review limited to whether the district court abused its discretion when denying injunctive relief)