Hamilton v. Brown
630 F.3d 889
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hamilton, a California state prisoner, alleges prison officials forcibly drew a blood sample for DNA under Cal. Penal Code § 296.1 and § 298.1, following a prior incident of alleged retaliation.
- He refused to provide a sample without written notice or a valid order; after refusal, he received a notice threatening use of force.
- On a later date, Hamilton was escorted to the medical clinic, restrained, and a blood sample was forcibly taken while handcuffed.
- Hamilton filed a pro se federal complaint alleging Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state-law claims; district court dismissed the SAC with prejudice under the PLRA.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s § 1915A dismissal, applying liberal construction to pro se pleadings.
- The California DNA Act requires inmates to provide DNA samples; force may be used only after attempts at voluntary compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the California DNA Act violate the Fourth Amendment? | Hamilton claims warrantless, suspicionless blood draw violates rights. | Act is analogous to federal/state laws upholding DNA collection; intrusion justified by government interests. | No Fourth Amendment violation; intrusion is minimal and government interests are compelling. |
| Does due process require a hearing before DNA collection? | Hamilton contends a hearing is required before compelled sampling. | Rise controls; no hearing required. | Due process claim rejected; no hearing required. |
| Does the DNA collection violate the Eighth Amendment? | Forcible extraction shows deliberate indifference or malicious intent. | Force used is constitutionally permissible under the Act; no deliberate indifference shown. | Eighth Amendment claim rejected; force not shown to be wanton or malicious. |
| Are remaining state-law claims valid against the Act? | Act violates California procedural due process and searches/seizures provisions. | California courts have rejected these arguments; Act is valid. | State-law challenges meritless; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc plurality upholds Fourth Amendment reasonableness of DNA collection for felons on supervised release)
- Rise v. Oregon, 59 F.3d 1556 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholds compelled DNA sampling from prisoners against Fourth Amendment challenge)
- Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (upholds DNA sampling of convicted offenders)
- Vanderlinden v. Kansas, 874 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Kan. 1995) (upholds DNA sampling for felons)
- People v. Robinson, 47 Cal.4th 1104 (2010) (recognizes compelling public interest in accurate crime prosecution justifying minimal intrusion)
- Travis, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 184 (Cal. App. 2005) (state law challenges to DNA sampling rejected)