People v. Harris
D070711
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- In Dec. 2013 Taleia Harris pled guilty to felony grand theft from a person; she was DNA-swabbed at booking.
- In Nov. 2014 voters enacted Proposition 47, reclassifying certain theft felonies as misdemeanors and creating §1170.18 relief to recall and resentence prior felonies to misdemeanors.
- Harris successfully obtained resentencing under §1170.18 to convert her felony to a misdemeanor and then moved to expunge her DNA profile from the state database.
- The trial court denied expungement; Harris appealed arguing statutory and constitutional grounds.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding statutory law (including an amendment by Bill No. 1492) and constitutional precedents permit retention of DNA collected lawfully when the offense qualified for DNA submission at the time of collection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA must be expunged when a felony is reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop 47 (§1170.18) | §1170.18 makes the offense a misdemeanor "for all purposes," so DNA collected for the original offense must be expunged (Alejandro N. rationale) | §299(f) (as amended by Bill No. 1492) bars courts from relieving the duty to provide or expunge DNA when the original conviction qualified; collection was lawful at the time | Denied — expungement not required: §299(f) now expressly covers §1170.18, so retention is permitted because sample was lawfully collected when offense qualified. |
| Whether Bill No. 1492 impermissibly amended Proposition 47 | Bill No. 1492 improperly changes Prop 47's effect by preventing expungement | Bill No. 1492 clarifies §299 and Prop 69 (and, if viewed as an amendment to Prop 47, was enacted consistent with Prop 47 and with required legislative procedure) | Denied — Bill No. 1492 does not impermissibly amend Prop 47; at most it clarifies DNA-expungement law and, procedurally, complied with amendment rules. |
| Whether retention of DNA violates equal protection | Retaining DNA for pre-Prop-47 resentenced misdemeanants but not for post-Prop-47 misdemeanants is arbitrary and lacks rational basis | Retention furthers legitimate public-safety objectives (crime solving, cold hits, CODIS compatibility); rational-basis review applies | Denied — rational basis exists (public safety, database integrity); equal protection challenge fails. |
| Whether collection/retention violates privacy/Fourth Amendment | Continued retention after resentencing invades privacy and amounts to unreasonable search/seizure | Buccal swab was a minimally intrusive, lawful booking procedure supported by probable cause; profiles use noncoding markers and statutory limits govern use | Denied — collection was reasonable (Maryland v. King framework); retention does not violate federal or state privacy rights given limited use and strong public interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (upheld buccal-swab DNA collection of arrestees as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
- Coffey v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 809 (2005) (wobbler-to-misdemeanor reduction under §17 does not require DNA expungement; court cannot relieve DNA duty despite reduction)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (2015) (earlier panel held §1170.18’s "misdemeanor for all purposes" language required expungement absent explicit statutory direction)
- In re J.C., 246 Cal.App.4th 1462 (2016) (analyzes interaction between Prop 47, DNA statutes, and legislative amendments clarifying expungement)
- In re C.B., 2 Cal.App.5th 1112 (2016) (persuasive analysis that DNA duty hinges on qualifying offense at time of collection)
- In re C.H., 2 Cal.App.5th 1139 (2016) (reasoned that "misdemeanor for all purposes" is temporal and supports retention prior to redesignation)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (2003) (legislative timing of ameliorative statutes does not by itself create equal protection violation)
- Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2012) (felony arrestees have diminished privacy expectations; DNA sampling comparable to fingerprinting/photo booking procedures)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood extraction from arrestee upheld; informs minimal-intrusion analysis)