Mario W. v. Hon. kaipio/state
281 P.3d 476
Ariz.2012Background
- Arizona law requires juveniles charged with certain offenses to submit a buccal DNA sample before adjudication; failure to comply can revoke release pending adjudication.
- Juveniles were summoned to advisory hearings, released pending adjudication, and ordered to submit buccal samples within five days.
- Courts below rejected Fourth Amendment objections; appellate panel split on whether samples for five juveniles with probable cause determinations were permissible and whether two without probable cause were permissible.
- Issue is whether the statutory pre-adjudication DNA sampling and profiling complies with the Fourth Amendment, on totality of the circumstances.
- Court recognizes two intrusions: (1) the seizure of the buccal cells and (2) the processing to extract a DNA profile; analyzes whether each intrusion is permissible.
- Court vacates the appellate decision and remands for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is pre-adjudication DNA sampling of juveniles constitutional under the Fourth Amendment? | Juveniles argue sampling violates privacy without probable cause. | State argues exigencies and identification interests justify sampling. | No, pre-adjudication sampling not justified for all juveniles. |
| Can the State compellingly obtain a DNA profile before adjudication as a second intrusion? | Exposure from profiling is a greater privacy intrusion. | Profiling aids identification and investigations. | Second search not sufficiently justified; profiling before adjudication unconstitutional. |
| Does probable cause prerequirement apply to buccal sampling before adjudication? | Arrestee-like sampling should require probable cause. | Exigencies and judicial order permit sampling without probable cause. | Exigency allows buccal sampling pre-adjudication regardless of probable cause. |
| Are expungement provisions relevant to pre-adjudication DNA use? | Profiling before adjudication risks lasting stigma. | Expungement post-adjudication limits use. | Court emphasizes limited pre-adjudication use and no strong state interest to justify second intrusion. |
| Should the appellate decision be vacated and remanded? | N/A | N/A | Yes; remanded consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishes reasonable searches require justifications; privacy interest)
- Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969) (fingerprinting as a permissible intrusion; likelihood of privacy considerations)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonableness of stops based on reasonable suspicion)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parole condition searches balanced under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (suspicionless search under totality of circumstances for probationers)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (balancing safety interests against privacy in jail contexts)
- Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (2012) (discussion of arrestee DNA profiling and Fourth Amendment)
- Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) (segregates initial seizure from subsequent search; two-tier analysis)
- Amerson, 483 F.3d 73 (2007) (DNA profiling of arrestees; Fourth Amendment consideration)