Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, DNA samples were taken from inmates Jeffrey and Bradley Groceman, who were incarcerated for armed bank robbery and conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, both qualifying offenses under the act. Prior to having the DNA sample, pair filed a complaint to challenge the act as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the sample was taken for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court agrees that the forced collection of DNA samples implicates the Fourth Amendment, but the court rules that as applied to inmates, who have diminished privacy rights, the search is reasonable. “Though like fingerprinting, collection of a DNA sample for purposes of identification implicates the Fourth Amendment, persons incarcerated after conviction retain no constitutional privacy interest against their correct identification.” OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.