Suit Opposes California DNA Sampling Law

Two California residents are challenging a state law requiring authorities to take a DNA sample from every person arrested for or charged with a felony.

Elizabeth Haskell, of Oakland, and Reginald Ento, of Sacramento, say the DNA collection violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

The law at issue, Proposition 69, went into effect Jan. 1. According to the provision, any adult arrested for or charged with a felony offense must provide DNA samples that will be stored in a criminal database accessible to local, state, national and international law enforcement agencies.

Haskell says she was arrested when attending a peace rally in San Francisco earlier this year. Though officers did not charge her with a crime and quickly released her, they still required her to provide a DNA sample, according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In a statement Haskell said that such mandatory DNA sampling could have a "silencing effect" on political action.

"Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database simply because I was exercising my right to speak out," Haskell told the media.

Ento says he was arrested in Sacramento on accusations of being in possession of stolen cameras. The arresting officers took a DNA sample from him without a warrant even though he, too, was never charged with a felony, according to the suit.

Both plaintiffs contend that the law "dramatically expanded the scope of mandatory, suspicionless and warrantless seizure and testing" of DNA in California.

They also claim that the law will result in the mandatory DNA sampling of hundreds of thousands of people "who have not been, and in many cases never will be, convicted of any crime."

The mandatory sampling also lacks any judicial oversight because the collection occurs immediately after arrest, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs' attorney Peter C. Meier of Hastings, Janofsky & Walker said the practice of automatically collecting DNA from people who are merely arrested "ignores the presumption of innocence."

"It blurs the line between being suspected of a crime and being convicted," Meier said in a statement.

The plaintiffs add that the resources spent collecting thousands of DNA samples from arrestees detract from the resources that could instead be devoted to processing crime-scene samples to help solve violent crimes like rape and murder.

The suit seeks an order declaring Proposition 69 unconstitutional and barring California from seizing DNA samples from felony suspects.

Haskell and Ento also want the court to order the state to destroy all DNA samples collected from them.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

Michael Risher of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California also represents the plaintiffs.