The Newest from the Ninth Circuit on Arrestee DNA Databases

As of today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice upheld the constitutionality of DNA collection before conviction (DNA-BC). The first opinion came in United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010). There, the panel applied a totality-of-the-circumstances balancing test to uphold the federal arrestee law. However, the full court promptly agreed to rehear the case en banc (thus vacating the opinion in Pool).

At that point, another challenge to DNA-BC was pending. Haskell v. Brown, 677 F.Supp.2d 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2009), was a class action brought to enjoin enforcement of the California Proposition that initiated DNA arrestee sampling in that state. Determining that this law was, on balance, constitutionally reasonable, District Judge Charles Breyer, denied the request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

With eleven Ninth Circuit judges stirring the pot in Pool, Haskell moved to the back burner. But then Pool pled guilty, and the en banc court dropped his case as moot. Pool, 659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Hence, the Haskell panel returned to work.

Today the case boiled over with the release of the panel’s opinion. As in Pool, the court split 2-1 in favor of DNA-BC. The two judges in Haskell to side with the state were Milan D. Smith, Jr., and James Dale Todd, a senior district judge for the Western District of Kentucky. Judge William A. Fletcher wrote a sharp dissent. Judge Smith devoted much of his majority opinion to refuting Judge Fletcher’s dissent. As a preliminary matter, they disagreed over whether Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009), a previous Ninth Circuit case not even involving a DNA database forced the court’s hand here. Judge Smith correctly wrote that “very broad dicta” in the case did not compel any particular result in Haskell.

With the path cleared, Judge Smith asked whether the “totality of the circumstances” were such that DNA-DB under California law was “reasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Fletcher disputed the use of this amorphous standard. On this issue, neither opinion is convincing. Time after time, in case after case, the Supreme Court has repeated an important mantra—full fledged searches and seizures intended to produce evidence of criminal conduct are per se unreasonable, regardless of the other circumstances, when they are undertaken without a warrant and when they do not fall within a categorical exception to this warrant requirement. E.g., Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011); City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S.Ct. 2619 (2010); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). Therefore, it will not do to state, as Judge Smith blandly did, that totality-of-the-circumstances balancing is the norm in Fourth Amendment cases. To the contrary, it is an anomaly that has been used only in two Supreme Court cases (for searches involving probationers or parolees). Upholding DNA-BC therefore requires showing that the program falls within an established exception—or recognizing a new exception to accommodate the acquisition of fingerprints, photographs, and now, DNA profiles for use in databases. The former move is possible but takes considerable effort. The latter would be the more candid and convincing mode of analysis.

But just as the Haskell majority’s leap to totality balancing is largely unjustified [update of June 16, 2013: The Supreme Court in Maryland v. King made an attempt to justify such balancing and used it to uphold a system of routine DNA sampling before conviction], the dissent’s theory of why DNA-BC is unconstitutional is groundless. According to dissenting Judge Fletcher, the Supreme Court held in Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985), and Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969), that identifying information (fingerprints, in those cases) “may not be taken from an arrestee solely for an investigative purpose, absent a warrant or reasonable suspicion that the [information] would help solve the crime for which he was taken into custody.” This characterization overlooks the most critical facts in the cases and the explicit reasoning of the opinions. Justice White’s majority opinion in Hayes could not have been clearer in explaining that the cases simply hold “that transportation to and investigative detention at the station house without probable cause or judicial authorization together violate the Fourth Amendment.” 470 U.S. at 815. That the fingerprints were used for investigative purposes and not just to establish the true identities of the arrested suspects had nothing to do with the constitutional infirmity. “[T]he fingerprints ... were the inadmissible fruits of an illegal detention” (id. at 813) because “the police at that time were without probable cause for an arrest, there was no warrant, and [the suspects] had not consented to being taken to the station house.” Id. at 313-14. Not a single Justice dissented from this understanding of the issue. Yet, Judge Fletcher transformed the simple and unremarkable result in Hayes and Davis into a condemnation of all forms of DNA-BC. Judge Smith was kind to call this aggressive reading of the cases a “novel interpretation.”

The Haskell court also split on the outcome of the balancing test. The majority was quick to accept the state’s litany of interests in DNA-BC as weighty, whereas the dissent demanded more rigorous proof. Conversely, the dissent was quick to accept nonscientific speculations about the dangers of DNA profiles and the risks of misuse of retained DNA samples, whereas the majority was loath to invalidate today’s laws on the grounds that they might be misused or changed.

Further developments are likely in the Ninth Circuit. Of the six judges to vote in Haskell and Pool (three per case), two of them came from outside the circuit and sat by designation. Counting only the Ninth Circuit noses, the vote to uphold DNA-DB has been 2-2 — not exactly a stable alignment. Obviously, there is considerable turmoil among the Ninth Circuit judges, and an en banc order in Haskell seems probable.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Jen Wagner for sending me a copy of today’s slip opinion in Haskell.

Cross-posted from The Double Helix Law Blog.