People v. Harris
15 Cal. App. 5th 47
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- In 2013 Taleia Harris pled guilty to felony grand theft (Pen. Code § 487(c)) and a buccal DNA sample was taken at booking.
- In 2014 voters enacted Proposition 47, reclassifying certain felonies (including petty theft under $950) as misdemeanors and allowing resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.18.
- Harris successfully obtained resentencing under Proposition 47, converting her felony to a misdemeanor, and then moved to expunge her DNA record from the state DNA database.
- The trial court denied the motion to expunge; Harris appealed arguing statutory and constitutional grounds (equal protection and privacy).
- Since Alejandro N., the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1492, which amended Penal Code § 299(f) to expressly include § 1170.18 in the list of statutes that do not permit relieving a person of the administrative duty to provide DNA.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding statutory and constitutional challenges fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a felony reduced to a misdemeanor under Prop. 47 requires expungement of a previously collected DNA sample | Harris: §1170.18 makes the offense "a misdemeanor for all purposes," so DNA must be expunged | People: §299(b)/(f) and §296 authorize retention because DNA was lawfully collected when offense qualified; AB 1492 explicitly references §1170.18 | Denied — §299(f) bars expungement; retention authorized because sample was lawfully taken for a qualifying offense and §299(f) covers §1170.18 |
| Whether AB 1492 impermissibly amended Proposition 47 | Harris: adding §1170.18 to §299(f) improperly amends the voter initiative | People: AB 1492 clarifies existing DNA-expungement law (Proposition 69) and, if viewed as amendment, is consistent with Prop. 47's intent | AB 1492 did not impermissibly amend Prop. 47; at most is a consistent clarification |
| Equal protection challenge to retaining DNA of pre-Prop.47 resentenced misdemeanants | Harris: similarly situated post-Prop.47 misdemeanants aren't subject to DNA retention—no rational basis for different treatment | People: retention serves legitimate governmental interests (crime solving, public safety, CODIS compatibility) — rational basis exists | Denied — rational-basis standard satisfied; retention is rationally related to legitimate interests |
| Fourth Amendment / state privacy challenge to collection and retention of DNA | Harris: continued retention and use of DNA profile violates privacy and Fourth Amendment protections | People: buccal swab is minimally intrusive; arrestees have diminished privacy; statutory limits and limited markers restrict intrusion | Denied — collection and retention are reasonable; privacy interest outweighed by governmental interests in an expansive DNA database |
Key Cases Cited
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (expungement held proper under facts in that decision)
- In re J.C., 246 Cal.App.4th 1462 (discusses Prop. 47, §1170.18, and effect of AB 1492 on §299)
- In re C.B., 2 Cal.App.5th 1112 (analyzes timing of qualifying offense and DNA retention under the Database Act)
- People v. Coffey, 129 Cal.App.4th 809 (wobbler reduction under §17 does not obviate DNA submission requirement)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (upheld buccal swab DNA collection of arrestees as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (prospective application of sentencing changes does not violate equal protection)
- Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.) (discusses diminished privacy expectations for arrestees and DNA collection)