MARIO W. v. Kaipio
228 Ariz. 207
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Seven juveniles challenged the constitutionality of mandatory pre-release DNA sampling under A.R.S. § 8-238.
- Five juveniles (Mario, Bradley, Alexis, Eric, Noble) had judicial findings of probable cause to believe they committed enumerated offenses.
- Two juveniles (Bailey, Devon) had no judicial finding of probable cause before DNA testing was ordered.
- Arizona Rule and juvenile procedures allowed DNA testing as a condition of release when probable cause exists; some orders were stayed pending the special actions.
- The court split: majority upheld pre-adjudication DNA sampling for five juveniles with probable cause; dissenting opinions questioned applicability without probable cause and criticized privacy implications.
- Key issue is whether DNA sampling in pre-adjudication detention contexts is a reasonable Fourth Amendment search and whether Equal Protection concerns are raised by § 8-238's offense list.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| constitutionality of § 8-238 with probable cause | five juveniles with probable cause may be validly tested | statute permits DNA testing as a condition of release with probable cause | constitutional for five juveniles |
| constitutional status when probable cause absent | DSA requires probability to detain; testing without probable cause violates Fourth Amendment | probable cause not strictly required if context justifies identification | unconstitutional for Bailey and Devon |
| Fourth Amendment totality of circumstances framework | probable cause finds reduces privacy and legitimizes DNA testing | totality allows DNA testing as reasonable under state interests | majority adopts totality framework supporting five, dissents criticize watersheds of probable cause |
| equal protection challenge re offense list in § 8-238 | listing some serious offenses but excluding others violates equal protection | rational basis with legitimate state interests in crime prevention and identification | rational basis; no equal protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966) (bodily intrusion searches require justification; blood draws involve Fourth Amendment concerns)
- Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1958) (probable cause and warrants; individualized suspicion principles for searches)
- Kincade v. state, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004) (DNA sampling as identification with minimal intrusion; constitutional under certain frameworks)
- Mitchell v. United States, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (DNA sampling as identification; debates on privacy vs. governmental interests)
- State v. JV-512600, 187 Ariz. 419 (Ariz. App. 1996) (upholding mandatory DNA testing of adjudicated juveniles; identification purposes)