United States v. Thomas Kriesel, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13313
9th Cir.2013Background
- Kriesel pled guilty to drug conspiracy, sentenced to imprisonment plus supervised release with a DNA blood-sample collection and CODIS entry requirement.
- Kriesel completed supervised release and moved under Rule 41(g) to have the original blood sample returned, while accepting CODIS profile retention.
- District court upheld government retention to ensure match accuracy and integrity of CODIS, citing Match Confirmation as essential.
- Fidelities of CODIS procedures: sample storage, specimen IDs, match confirmation, and reanalysis for accuracy.
- This appeal follows Kriesel I (2007) and Kriesel II (2010), with remand to address Rule 41(g) on the blood sample.
- Court affirms district court’s ruling that retention is reasonable under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 41(g) requires return of the blood sample. | Kriesel seeks return of the blood sample as property. | Government shows legitimate retention purpose for CODIS accuracy. | Yes; but retention found reasonable under circumstances. |
| Whether Match Confirmation justifies indefinite retention. | Retention is unnecessary for CODIS accuracy. | Match Confirmation preserves integrity and prevents false leads. | Retention justified as reasonable. |
| Whether retention remains reasonable after Kriesel’s release completion. | No ongoing need post-release. | Retention necessary for ongoing CODIS accuracy and QA. | Retention remains reasonable. |
| Whether privacy concerns override identity-verification benefits. | Stored full genetic data invades privacy. | Privacy risks are speculative and outweighed by public interests. | Privacy interests weighed against benefits; majority sustains retention. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kaczynski, 416 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 41(g) burden requires legitimate retention reason; reasonable under all circumstances)
- United States v. Ramsden, 2 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1993) (test for reasonableness under all circumstances; presumptive return unless justified)
- United States v. Kriesel (Kriesel I), 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007) (DNA retention issue as to supervised releasees; Junk DNA vs identification)
- United States v. Kriesel (Kriesel II), 604 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 41(g) remand to address return of blood sample)
- United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004) (identify DNA only; limits on private data in CODIS)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (standing; speculative future harms not injury-in-fact)