Aggregated News
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court signaled on Monday that it may review whether law enforcement officials may collect DNA samples from people who have been accused, but not convicted, of serious crimes.
Chief Justice John Roberts put on hold an April 24 decision by a divided Maryland Court of Appeals overturning the 2010 rape conviction of Alonzo Jay King.
A lower court had sentenced King to life in prison without the possibility of parole after he was arrested for assault in 2009 and police used his DNA to link him to an unsolved 2003 rape.
The police who collected the DNA in 2009 did so without a warrant, and the Maryland appeals court said King's expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment outweighed the interests of the state.
Maryland's DNA Collection Act allows law enforcement to take samples from people arrested for violent crimes, attempted violent crimes, burglary or attempted burglary.
Roberts agreed that there was a "fair prospect" the Supreme Court would reverse the April decision, and that the decision subjected Maryland to "irreparable harm."
He said the decision...
Chief Justice John Roberts put on hold an April 24 decision by a divided Maryland Court of Appeals overturning the 2010 rape conviction of Alonzo Jay King.
A lower court had sentenced King to life in prison without the possibility of parole after he was arrested for assault in 2009 and police used his DNA to link him to an unsolved 2003 rape.
The police who collected the DNA in 2009 did so without a warrant, and the Maryland appeals court said King's expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment outweighed the interests of the state.
Maryland's DNA Collection Act allows law enforcement to take samples from people arrested for violent crimes, attempted violent crimes, burglary or attempted burglary.
Roberts agreed that there was a "fair prospect" the Supreme Court would reverse the April decision, and that the decision subjected Maryland to "irreparable harm."
He said the decision...
.jpg){kind=link}