Lily Haskell’s DNA

Haskell v. Brown and Haskell v. Harris are two related lawsuits that challenged the lawfulness of California’s requirement for DNA collection at arrest (for a felony), regardless of whether the arrestee is charged with a crime. The law was upheld, demonstrating that the practice is legal and does not violate an arrestee’s constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

In 2009, Lily Haskell was arrested at a political rally, and forced to provide a DNA sample, on the basis that she was arrested for a felony (Haskell v. Brown). The DNA was collected by the police based upon California law. In California, police are required to obtain DNA from everyone who is arrested for a felony crime, whether or not he or she is subsequently charged with the offense (Haskell v. Brown). The idea behind the law is that collecting DNA from suspects of crimes and cataloging the information contained therein in a database may allow for past or future crimes to be solved via DNA evidence.

The American Civil Liberties Union came to Haskell’s defense and challenged the law by filing a class-action lawsuit on her behalf against the Attorney General of California, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and by seeking an injunction to stop further collection of DNA from arrestees while the case was argued (Haskell v. Brown). The main basis of the request for an injunction was that the collection of DNA violated Haskell’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and that further violations of other arrestees’ rights should be prevented while the case was heard (Haskell v. Brown). This injunction was denied in December of 2009 (Haskell v. Harris).

Haskell filed an appeal (naming the subsequent Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris), which was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court again denied the injunction. Judge Milan D. Smith, in concurring with the decision, wrote, “I agree with the per curiam opinion that California’s DNA collection law is clearly ‘constitutional as applied to anyone arrested for, or charged with, a felony offense by California state or local officials’” (Haskell v. Harris).

The basis for this decision by the Court was that the California law requiring DNA collection was “materially indistinguishable” (Haskell v. Harris) from the Maryland law previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned a Maryland Court of Appeals ruling that stated collection of DNA at arrest constituted an unreasonable search. It ruled that collection of DNA was similar to the collection of biographical information and identifying information, such as fingerprints, at arrest, and that the intrusion necessary to obtain the sample (a swab of the inside of the cheek) was so slight that it was reasonable when weighed against the need to identify arrestees (Maryland v. King).

The rulings in Maryland v. King, Haskell v. Brown and Haskell v. Harris are correct, as they properly interpret the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment (Arizona vs. Hicks) does give us strong protections, requiring a warrant for most searches or seizures. However, if the courts were to interpret that to mean a warrant would be required for the collection of DNA at arrest, it seems that the concept could be applied to rulings already made over the years regarding the collection of fingerprints at arrest, as the collection of DNA is no more intrusive as obtaining the patterns of friction points on a person’s fingers. It could result in past cases being challenged on the basis of fingerprint evidence. This does not pass the logic test and is another reason it is clear the Courts in these cases ruled properly.

Works Cited

Haskel v. Brown. 09-04779 CRB. United States District Court, Northern District of California. 2009. Print.

Haskel v. Harris. 10-15152. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2014. Print.

Maryland v. King. 12-207. Supreme Court of the United States. 2103. Print.