People v. Laird
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- In May 2014 Gavin Laird was arrested on felony marijuana charges and provided a buccal (DNA) swab at booking.
- Laird pleaded guilty to a felony (Health & Saf. Code § 11357(a)); the plea included an agreement that the charge could be reduced after successful probation.
- He obtained a resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.18 to a misdemeanor, and later under Proposition 64 the conviction was redesignated as an "infraction for all purposes."
- Laird moved to expunge his DNA profile from the state database; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal the court addressed (1) whether Proposition 64’s redesignation requires removal of DNA collected at the time of the felony plea, (2) whether the DNA Database Act/Proposition 69 permits expungement after redesignation, and (3) constitutional challenges (equal protection and privacy/Fourth Amendment).
- The court affirmed the denial: redesignation under Prop. 64 does not require expungement, statutory provisions and precedent support retention, and constitutional challenges fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Laird) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Prop. 64 redesignation to an "infraction for all purposes" require expungement of DNA collected after a felony plea? | Redesignation is "for all purposes," so it retroactively removes the qualifying felony and entitles him to expungement. | Redesignation ameliorates punitive effects but does not nullify administrative acts (DNA collection) that occurred at the time of the felony plea. | No. Redesignation does not relate back for DNA expungement; DNA collection/retention is administrative. |
| Does the DNA Database Act / Prop. 69 (Pen. Code §§ 296, 299) authorize expungement after redesignation? | Prop. 69/§ 299 requires expungement if there is no past or present qualifying offense after redesignation. | §§ 296 and 299 require DNA from anyone convicted/pleads guilty to a felony; a past qualifying offense (the felony plea) prevents expungement; subdivision (f) bars relief notwithstanding other laws. | No. The felony plea is a past qualifying offense; § 299 bars expungement despite redesignation. |
| Equal protection: does retention discriminate against persons redesignated to infractions? | Laird is similarly situated to post-Prop 64 infraction defendants and thus retention is unequal treatment. | Laird is not similarly situated: he pleaded and was convicted of a felony; classification is rationally related to legitimate interests. | No equal protection violation; distinguishing treatment is reasonable and serves legitimate state interests. |
| Fourth Amendment / state privacy: does warrantless collection/retention of DNA violate privacy or constitute an unreasonable search? | Warrantless DNA at booking and continued retention after redesignation violate privacy and the Fourth Amendment. | DNA collection at felony booking is a routine administrative booking procedure; limited markers and statutory controls minimize privacy intrusion; state interests in crime-solving outweigh intrusion. | No constitutional violation. Collection/retention is reasonable under the balancing test and does not violate privacy rights in these circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (upholding DNA buccal swab at booking as reasonable booking procedure)
- People v. Buza, 4 Cal.5th 658 (2018) (Cal. Supreme Court: Proposition 69 DNA collection valid as applied to arrestees held for serious offenses)
- In re C.H., 2 Cal.App.5th 1139 (2016) (redesignation does not alter the original charge for administrative acts such as DNA collection)
- In re J.C., 246 Cal.App.4th 1462 (2016) (denying DNA expungement after felony reduced to misdemeanor; felony before redesignation qualifies inclusion)
- In re C.B., 2 Cal.App.5th 1112 (2016) (juvenile’s felony admission is a past qualifying offense that defeats expungement)
- People v. Harris, 15 Cal.App.5th 47 (2017) (amendments to DNA statutes and Prop. 47 context prohibit expungement when guilty plea established a qualifying felony)
- Good v. Superior Court, 158 Cal.App.4th 1494 (2008) (DNA collection is administrative, not punitive)
- Coffey v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 809 (2005) (interpretation of DNA statutes and risk of permanent retention anticipated by voters)