In Maryland v. King, 569 U.S.

___ (2013), the United States Supreme Court decided that "when
officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the
suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the
arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony
Kennedy, described Maryland's law as follows:

The Act authorizes Maryland law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from "an individual
who is charged with... a crime of violence or an attempt to commit a crime of violence; or... burglary
or an attempt to commit burglary."

Maryland law defines a crime of violence to include murder, rape, first-degree assault, kidnaping,
arson, sexual assault, and a variety of other serious crimes. Once taken, a DNA sample may not be
processed or placed in a database before the individual is arraigned (unless the individual consents).
It is then that a judicial officer ensures that there is probable cause to detain the arrestee on a
qualifying serious offense.

If "all qualifying criminal charges are determined to be unsupported by probable cause... the DNA
sample shall be immediately destroyed." DNA samples are also destroyed if "a criminal action begun
against the individual... does not result in a conviction,... the conviction is finally reversed or vacated
and no new trial is permitted "or "the individual is granted an unconditional pardon."

133 S.Ct. at 1967 (citations to the Maryland statute omitted).

The majority balanced state interests relating to detaining and charging arrestees against the
affected individuals' interests in their bodily integrity and informational privacy. It concluded that it is
constitutionally reasonable for the state to undertake the "negligible" physical intrusion of swabbing
the inside of the legitimately detained arrestee's cheeks and using limited data from the DNA to
determine whether the individual might be associated with a crime scene or victim.

BACKGROUND

The case was heard before the Supreme Court in February 2013, and a verdict was released four
months later, in June 2013. Dr. Steven D. Schwinn's article titled "Fourth Amendment," published by
the American Bar Association, best gives a full detailed progression of the case. Alonzo Jay King Jr.
was arrested for first- and second-degree assault. As according to Maryland police protocol, the
Maryland DNA Collection Act, a DNA sample was taken from King at the time of the arrest and
entered into Maryland's database. It was matched to an unsolved rape case in 2003.
A Maryland officer presented the evidence to a Wicomico County grand jury, which called for an
indictment, procured a warrant to obtain a second buccal DNA sample that could be used as
incriminating evidence for the 2003 rape case.

King filed a motion to suppress the DNA evidence, stating that it infringed upon his Fourth
Amendment rights, which prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, in the Circuit Court for
Wicomico County. His motion was denied, and King pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape and
appealed the ruling. The Maryland Court of Appeals then reversed the original ruling, agreeing that
the DNA sampling was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and could not be used as evidence.

The State of Maryland then appealed the ruling and called for the case to be reviewed by the
Supreme Court of the United States.

RULING

The decision was close, 5-4 in favor of Maryland. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, filed a scathing dissenting opinion. The
justices maintained that "categorically" and "without exception," "The Fourth Amendment forbids
searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of
the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence" (133 S.Ct. at 1980). Some Supreme Court
cases seem to contradict the claim.[2]

The dissent also warned that "because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into
a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason" (133 S. Ct.
at 1999).

Justice Scalia took the rare step of reading his dissent from the bench, "signaling deep
disagreement" on the Court.