Maryland v. King After Maryland resident Alonzo King was arrested for threatening a group of people with a shotgun, local police took a swab of DNA from his cheek. The sample matched evidence from an unsolved rape case in the state DNA database, and King was eventually convicted of that crime and sentenced to life in prison. He challenged this outcome, focusing on the unfairness of a Maryland law that allows DNA fingerprinting of those who have been arrested but have not yet been convicted of violent crimes. King’s challenge gave the United States Supreme Court a chance to decide a crucial question: Is taking DNA samples from arrestees merely the equivalent of traditional fingerprinting or an unacceptable invasion of privacy of the potentially innocent? Maryland v. King United States Supreme Court 569 U.S. 185 (2013) In the Words of the Court… Justice Kennedy, Majority Opinion * * * * At issue is a standard, expanding technology already in widespread use throughout the Nation. * * * * DNA identification is an advanced technique superior to fingerprinting in many ways, so much so that to insist on fingerprints as the norm would make little sense to either the forensic expert or a layperson. The additional intrusion upon the arrestee’s privacy beyond that associated with fingerprinting is not significant . . . and DNA is a markedly more accurate form of identifying arrestees. A suspect who has changed his facial features to evade photographic identification or even one who has undertaken the more arduous task of altering his fingerprints cannot escape the revealing power of his DNA. * * * The only difference between DNA analysis and fingerprint databases is the unparalleled accuracy DNA provides. * * * * The expectations of privacy of an individual taken into police custody “necessarily [are] of a diminished scope. . . .” “[B]oth the person and the property in his immediate possession may be searched at the station house.” * * * A suspect’s criminal history is a critical part of his identity that officers should know when processing him for detention. It is expected that “[p]eople detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” Decision The Court upheld Maryland’s right to take DNA samples from people arrested for serious crimes and, in the process, validated similar laws in twenty-seven other states. The decision was not, however, based on cold case concerns. Instead, the Court justified the practice as necessary to help police identify suspects in custody. For Critical Analysis In his dissent, Justice Scalia argued, “[B]ecause of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” Do you agree with Scalia that the Court erred in upholding arrestee-DNA-testing laws? Why or why not?
