State v. Emerson
134 Ohio St. 3d 191
Ohio2012Background
- Issues whether a person acquitted of a crime can challenge retention and use of his DNA profile under the Fourth Amendment.
- Appellant Emerson’s DNA sample was lawfully obtained during a 2005 rape investigation and his DNA profile was entered into CODIS.
- Emerson was acquitted of the rape charge, but the DNA profile remained in CODIS and no expungement was sought.
- In 2007–2009 a homicide investigation linked Emerson’s prior DNA profile to a crime, leading to new charges and suppression proceedings.
- Ohio Supreme Court held no reasonable expectation of privacy in a DNA profile from a lawfully obtained sample and lack of standing to object to its use.
- Court rejected automatic removal of the profile upon acquittal, holding statute did not require state-initiated expungement and exonerated individuals must seek expungement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to object to DNA profile retention | Emerson had privacy in his DNA profile and standing to challenge | No reasonable privacy in the profile; no standing | No standing; no reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Authority to retain and use DNA profile in later investigations | Retention beyond acquittal impermissible for new prosecution | State may retain and use DNA profile for investigations | State authorized to retain and use DNA profile |
| Expungement/removal of DNA profile after acquittal | Profile should be expunged or automatically removed | No automatic removal; statute does not require state to expunge | No automatic removal; removal requires separate exoneration/expungement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (defines privacy rights protections under Ohio law and Fourth Amendment parity)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (requires subjective expectation of privacy to be recognized as reasonable)
- Smith v. State, 744 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2001) (DNA profile becomes state work product; no privacy interest in profile)
- Wilson v. State, 132 Md.App. 510 (2000) (DNA testing can be used for future investigations without violating privacy)
- Bickley v. State, 227 Ga.App. 413 (1997) (DNA results retained for future investigations like fingerprints)
- King, 232 A.D.2d 111 (N.Y.S.2d 1997) (lawfully obtained DNA samples yield DNA profiles usable in future cases)