1

Maryland V. King

Author:

Affiliation:

Course:

Instructor:

Date:
 2

Maryland V. King

The case of Maryland v. King undertook to address the constitutionality of DNA

collection from individuals who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime (Roth, 2013). The

oral arguments in the Court of Appeals in Maryland v. King were held on May 6, 2013. The case

was heard by a panel of three judges from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond,

Virginia. The oral arguments were impressive as each party attempted to convince the court

through sound legal reasoning supported by different laws.

Particularly, the arguments focused on the constitutionality of Maryland's law that

authorized the collection of DNA samples from individuals arrested for certain serious crimes,

before a conviction. The issue before the court was whether this practice violated the Fourth

Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The attorneys representing

Alonzo King, the defendant in the case, argued that the DNA collection was an intrusive and

unjustifiable search that violated his constitutional rights. They also argued that the law was

overly broad and could be used to collect DNA from individuals who were ultimately not

charged with a crime.

The attorneys representing the state of Maryland, on the other hand, argued that the DNA

collection was a reasonable search that served important law enforcement interests, such as

identifying individuals who had been arrested and solving cold cases. The judges asked probing

questions and expressed skepticism about both sides' arguments. Some of the judges questioned

whether the DNA collection was a significant intrusion on an individual's privacy rights, while

others raised concerns about the potential for misuse of the DNA samples. Ultimately, the Fourth
 3

Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of the state, upholding the constitutionality of

Maryland's DNA collection law.

The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued the final decision in

June 2013. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that DNA collection from individuals arrested for a

"serious offense" is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that such

DNA collection serves the government's interest in identifying individuals who have been

arrested and in solving unsolved crimes and that it does not unduly intrude on an individual's

privacy rights.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. In the opinion, Kennedy

emphasized that the DNA collection was conducted pursuant to a lawful arrest and that it was a

minimally intrusive search that provided significant benefits to law enforcement. Justice Antonin

Scalia wrote a passionate dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and

Elena Kagan. In his dissent, Scalia argued that DNA collection was an unconstitutional search

under the Fourth Amendment. He emphasized that the collection of DNA from arrestees was not

supported by any traditional exception to the warrant requirement and that it represented a

significant intrusion on an individual's privacy rights (Deitrich, 2014).

I believe the side that dissented is correct. The Fourth Amendment gives people

privileges against warrantless searches. Hence, allowing DNA tests infringe on this right.

Nevertheless, the Court's decision in Maryland v. King represents a significant ruling on the

issue of DNA collection from individuals who have been arrested but not yet convicted of a

crime. The decision remains controversial and has continued to be the subject of debate and

discussion in legal and policy circles.

 4

References

Deitrich, L. (2014). Say Aah! Maryland v. King Defines Reasonable Standard for DNA

Searches. Val. UL Rev., 49, 1095.

Roth, A. (2013). Maryland v. King and the wonderful, horrible DNA revolution in law

enforcement. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 11, 295.