State v. Drakes, 146 A.3d 21

Roosevelt Drakes, convicted of murder and firearm possession in 2005, was told he must provide a DNA sample under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-102g.
Drakes repeatedly refused department requests in 2009–2010; the state sought a court order permitting the use of reasonable physical force to obtain a sample and later charged him under § 54-102g(g) for refusal.
The trial court (Feb. 8, 2011) authorized reasonable force and later denied Drakes’ motion to dismiss the criminal charge; a jury convicted him of the misdemeanor refusal charge and he received one year consecutive sentence.
The Appellate Court affirmed both the trial court’s authorization to use reasonable force and the conviction, holding § 54-102g to be regulatory (not punitive) and that the prosecution did not violate double jeopardy or due process.
The Supreme Court granted certification, adopted the companion reasoning in State v. Banks, and affirmed the Appellate Court: trial court had jurisdiction and § 54-102g permitted reasonable force; the statute is regulatory and the refusal prosecution did not violate double jeopardy or due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Drakes)	Held
Whether trial court had jurisdiction and § 54-102g (pre-2011 amendment) authorized reasonable physical force to obtain DNA	Statute is regulatory; court may order reasonable force as necessary to effectuate the statutory scheme	§ 54-102g did not authorize use of force; only remedy was criminal prosecution under § 54-102g(g)	Trial court had jurisdiction and § 54-102g implicitly authorized reasonable force (court adopted Banks reasoning)
Whether prosecution/conviction under § 54-102g(g) violated due process or double jeopardy	Statute is remedial/regulatory, not punitive; prosecution is for distinct post-conviction refusal and not additional punishment for original crimes	Compelled DNA and criminal sanction are punitive or constitute double punishment for same offense	Statute is regulatory (not punitive); prosecution punished separate conduct (refusal) and thus did not violate due process or double jeopardy

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (double jeopardy test: whether each statute requires proof of an element the other does not)
Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (analysis re: multiple punishments and statute characterization)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (factors for determining whether a statute is punitive)
State v. Waterman, 264 Conn. 484 (Conn. test for regulatory v. punitive characterization)
State v. Kasprzyk, 255 Conn. 186 (state constitutional protection coextensive with federal double jeopardy protection)
State v. Alexander, 269 Conn. 107 (discussion of multiple punishments and double jeopardy principles)
Minnesota Methane, LLC v. Dep’t of Public Utility Control, 283 Conn. 700 (adoption of companion opinion reasoning)
Rocque v. Mellon, 275 Conn. 161 (adoption of companion opinion reasoning)