180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mark Buza was arrested for setting fire to a police car; hours later, while in jail and before any judicial probable-cause determination, deputies demanded a buccal DNA sample under California’s DNA Act; Buza refused and was later convicted partly for that refusal.
- Proposition 69 (2004) amended California’s DNA Act to require warrantless collection of DNA from adults arrested for or charged with any felony, to be taken "immediately following arrest" or during booking and uploaded to state and federal databases (CODIS).
- California’s statutory scheme requires collection and retention of biological samples (not just profiles), permits DOJ analysis and databank comparison, and provides an onerous, non-automatic expungement process for arrestees not convicted.
- The trial court convicted Buza (including for refusal to provide DNA); this court previously reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds, the California Supreme Court remanded after Maryland v. King, and the Court of Appeal reconsidered under state constitutional law.
- The Court of Appeal (Division Two) held that, under article I, section 13 of the California Constitution (and informed by article I, section 1 privacy values), mandatory, immediate DNA collection and databanking of felony arrestees without judicial probable-cause review violates the state constitution and reversed the conviction under the DNA Act.
Issues
| Issue | Buza's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California’s DNA Act authorizing warrantless, immediate collection and databasing of DNA from felony arrestees (pre-arraignment, without judicial probable cause and without automatic expungement) is constitutional under article I, §13 of the California Constitution | Act unreasonably intrudes on arrestees’ privacy and exceeds permissible scope of booking searches; arrestees (especially pre-probable-cause) retain substantial privacy; statute is used for criminal investigation, not mere identification | Analogous to accepted booking procedures (fingerprinting/photographing) and to Maryland v. King: government has a legitimate identification interest that justifies DNA booking as reasonable | The court rejected state’s position under the California Constitution: DNA sampling/analysis at arrest is an unreasonable seizure given (1) DNA’s extraordinary informational scope and indefinite retention; (2) difference from fingerprinting and limited immediate utility for identification; (3) lack of automatic expungement and familial-search risks; statute invalid as applied to arrestees |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (U.S. 2013) (U.S. Supreme Court upheld arrestee DNA collection in Maryland as reasonable booking procedure under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (search incident to lawful custodial arrest doctrine permitting full search of person)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw is a search under Fourth Amendment; balancing privacy and governmental interests)
- People v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528 (Cal. 1975) (California Supreme Court requires a more exacting standard under article I, §13 for arrestee searches than federal cases like Robinson)
- People v. Ruggles, 39 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1985) (California recognizes greater state protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- People v. Norman, 14 Cal.3d 929 (Cal. 1975) (application of heightened state constitutional protection for searches)
- People v. Laiwa, 34 Cal.3d 711 (Cal. 1983) (limits on "accelerated booking" searches and necessity of tailoring search scope to particular justifications)
- United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004) (upheld DNA collection from parolees but discussed privacy and retention concerns)
- People v. Diaz, 51 Cal.4th 84 (Cal. 2011) (cell-phone search incident-to-arrest issue; court constrained to federal Fourth Amendment precedent on suppression issues)