People v. Buza
230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 681
| Cal. | 2018Background
- In 2004 voters adopted Proposition 69 (the DNA Act), requiring buccal swabs, fingerprints, and palm prints from all adult felony arrestees and convicted felons and authorizing DOJ to create CODIS-identification profiles; refusal is a misdemeanor.
- Mark Buza was arrested for felony arson, declined to provide a cheek-swab DNA sample at jail booking, was later charged and convicted of arson and of misdemeanor refusal to provide DNA.
- The Court of Appeal reversed Buza’s refusal conviction under the Fourth Amendment, and after Maryland v. King was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court the Court of Appeal again reversed under the California Constitution (art. I, § 13).
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the DNA Act’s arrestee-sample requirement is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and under article I, section 13 as applied to an arrestee validly arrested on probable cause for a serious felony and booked into custody.
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland v. King upheld arrestee DNA collection on booking for serious offenses as a reasonable booking procedure; California’s law differs in scope and some retention/expungement details.
- The California Supreme Court upheld Buza’s misdemeanor conviction, holding that as applied to an individual arrested on probable cause for a serious felony and booked into custody, the DNA swab requirement is reasonable under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, §13; the court limited its holding to the facts presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory buccal-swab DNA collection at booking after arrest for a serious felony violates the Fourth Amendment | State: collection is a reasonable booking procedure akin to fingerprinting/photographing that advances identification and public-safety interests | Buza: King should be distinguished or rejected; California law is broader, allows collection/analysis pre-arraignment, and lacks automatic expungement, so it unreasonably invades privacy | Affirmed: reasonable under the Fourth Amendment as applied to an arrestee validly arrested on probable cause for a serious felony and booked into custody (followed Maryland v. King) |
| Whether analysis and database uploading before a judicial probable-cause determination is unconstitutional | State: King treats taking+analyzing as part of booking; immediate processing advances the State’s identification and investigatory interests | Buza: testing/uploading before judicial confirmation is a greater privacy intrusion and should be delayed until probable cause is judicially determined | Rejected as to this case: no meaningful Fourth Amendment difference given facts (valid arrest, prompt probable-cause finding/arraignment); court leaves broader questions for other cases |
| Whether California’s expungement scheme (non-automatic, requires request) renders the Act unreasonable under Fourth Amendment | State: statutory and criminal penalties prohibit misuse; expungement procedures and DOJ streamlined process mitigate concerns | Buza: non-automatic, burdensome expungement risks indefinite retention of DNA of innocent arrestees and disparate impact | Rejected as to Buza: adequacy of expungement not adjudicated because Buza was charged and convicted; court declines to decide hypothetical or as-applied challenges by differently situated arrestees |
| Whether article I, §13 of the California Constitution requires a different result than the Fourth Amendment | State: analysis follows King’s balancing approach; protections in California law (noncoding loci, criminal penalties for misuse, expungement) reduce intrusion | Buza: California Constitution affords greater privacy; arrestees retain substantial privacy expectations and state law is broader and more intrusive than Maryland’s | Rejected as to these facts: applying the same balancing test, requirement is reasonable as applied to a validly arrested, booked arrestee for a serious felony; court emphasizes narrow, fact-specific holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (U.S. Supreme Court holding DNA cheek swab at booking for serious offenses is a reasonable booking procedure)
- People v. Robinson, 47 Cal.4th 1104 (2010) (California Supreme Court upholding mandatory DNA collection of convicted felons and discussing identification rationale)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (prompt judicial probable-cause determination requirement after warrantless arrest)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _ (2016) (distinguishing intrusion levels of breath tests and blood tests; assessing privacy concerns of bodily samples)
- Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987) (California balancing test for reasonableness under article I, §13)
- People v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528 (1975) (limits on searches incident to arrest under California Constitution)