King v. State
76 A.3d 1035
Md.2013Background
- King challenges the Maryland DNA Collection Act after Maryland v. King remanded for reconsideration of constitutionality.
- The Supreme Court reversed Maryland’s ruling in Maryland v. King, holding DNA arrestee testing is a reasonable search as part of routine booking.
- On remand, King presses two questions: (1) does Article 26 prohibit the Act, and (2) did the trial court shift the burden of proof for reasonableness of a search without individualized suspicion?
- King did not preserve his Article 26 argument at trial, triggering Md. Rule 8-131(a) discretion to review unpreserved issues.
- The court ultimately holds the Act does not violate Article 26, and the burden-shifting question and any potential suppression remedy are resolved in King’s favor in part by procedural and statutory analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article 26 prohibit the DNA collection Act? | King argues Article 26 provides greater protection. | State argues Article 26 in pari materia with the Fourth Amendment; no greater protection. | Article 26 does not violate; in pari materia with Fourth Amendment, no extra protection. |
| Was King’s burden of proof improperly shifted and is suppression a remedy for a statutory violation? | King contends the State shifted burden and seeks suppression. | State maintains proper burden placement and no suppression remedy exists absent explicit statutory provision. | Burden remained on King; even if violation occurred, suppression is not available as a remedy. |
| Was King’s Article 26 argument properly reviewable despite unpreserved status? | King raised Article 26 below; trial court did not rule on it. | Issue was unpreserved and should be foregone. | Court exercises discretion to review unpreserved Article 26 argument and affirms non-violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 425 Md. 550 (2012) (DNA collection Act deemed unconstitutional under prior ruling (before remand))
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (SCOTUS held DNA identification of arrestees is reasonable as routine booking)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires a threshold showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for truth)
- Miles v. State, 365 Md. 488 (2001) (taint/fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in suppression contexts)
- Cox v. State, 421 Md. 630 (2011) (taint analysis for evidentiary suppression under fruit of the poisonous tree)
- Fitzgerald v. State, 384 Md. 484 (2004) (Franks-like considerations in Maryland context)
- Upshur v. State, 208 Md. App. 383 (2012) (no implied suppression remedy absent legislative directive)
- Sun Kin Chan v. State, 78 Md. App. 287 (1989) (analytical framework for exclusionary remedies in Maryland)
- Dorsey v. State, 185 Md. App. 82 (2009) (statutory violations and suppression considerations)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (Fourth Amendment not altered by state practices)
- Gahan v. State, 290 Md. 310 (1981) (Article 26 interpreted in pari materia with Fourth Amendment)
- Parker v. State, 402 Md. 372 (2007) (Article 26 independence but aligned with Fourth Amendment)
- Meisinger v. State, 155 Md. 195 (1928) (absence of Maryland exclusionary rule in Article 26)