State v. Medina
102 A.3d 661
Vt.2014Background
- Consolidated VT cases challenge 2011 amendment to 20 V.S.A. § 1933(a)(2) mandating DNA collection from arraigned felony defendants without a warrant or suspect-specific showing.
- Trial courts ruled the amendment unconstitutional under Article 11; issue framed as Vermont Constitution analysis, not Fourth Amendment.
- Statute creates a DNA data bank and a DNA database; collects, analyzes, stores, and shares DNA profiles with CODIS under safeguards, with expungement provisions if no conviction.
- DNA sampling occurs after arraignment upon probable cause finding, not at arrest, and includes a cheek-swab with potential long-term retention of DNA samples.
- Court discusses Martin (postconviction DNA) as foundation for special-needs balancing; King (federal Fourth Amendment) discussed as comparative context.
- Majority holds the preconviction arraignee DNA sampling violates Vermont Constitution Article I, Chapter I, Article 11, after applying the special-needs balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 20 V.S.A. § 1933(a)(2) violates Article 11. | Medina/other defendants argue expanded preconviction DNA sampling infringes privacy under Article 11. | State contends special-needs justification and timing align with Article 11 balancing and King reasoning may apply. | Yes; statute violates Article 11. |
| Do special-needs doctrine and balancing favor the State at arraignment for preconviction DNA? | Plaintiffs claim privacy outweighs state interests; ordinary law-enforcement needs do not justify intrusion. | State asserts long-range identification, deterrence, and missing-person uses constitute a valid special need. | Balance favors privacy; special need not sufficiently justified. |
| Is King applicable to Vermont's Article 11 analysis given different triggers (arraignment vs arrest)? | King supports some framework for preconviction DNA as a booking/identity function. | King is primarily Fourth Amendment; Vermont must apply its own Article 11 standards; timing and triggers differ. | King's reasoning not controlling; Article 11 analysis governs; statute unconst. |
| Does expungement provision mitigate the state's interests sufficiently in the balancing test? | Expungement reduces privacy intrusion, undermining the state's broadened interests. | Expungement acknowledges privacy protections but doesn't fully cure balance concerns for arraignees. | Expungement does not salvage constitutionality; statute still unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (VT 2008) (DNA sampling beyond ordinary law enforcement constitutes special need)
- State v. Berard, 154 Vt. 306 (1990) (special-needs warrant exception prerequisites and balancing framework)
- State v. Bauder, 2007 VT 16 (VT 2007) (rejects bright-line search-incident-to-arrest under Article 11; requires exigent circumstances)
- State v. Neil, 2008 VT 79 (VT 2008) (limits on warrantless search of containers post-arrest under Article 11)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (S. Ct. 2013) (Fourth Amendment standard; arrestee DNA as booking procedure with minimal intrusion)
- King v. State, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. 2012) (preserves state interest in DNA collection at arrest; later reversed on federal grounds)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (supreme court decision on Fourth Amendment confrontation to arrestee DNA)