Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

MARYLAND v. KING

Docket No.: 12-207
Certiorari Granted: Nov 9 2012
Argued: February 26, 2013
Decided: June 3, 2013

Topics:

Bill of Rights, Constitutional Law, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Miranda, criminal procedure, murder, privacy, probable cause, public schools, self-incrimination, traffic stops, warrantless search

PartyNames: Maryland v. Alonzo Jay King, Jr.
Petitioner: Maryland
Respondent: Alonzo Jay King, Jr.

Court Below: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Citation: 425 Md. 550
Supreme Court Docket

Maryland
v.
Alonzo Jay King, Jr.
Facts:

Respondent was arrested in Wicomico County, Mary-land, and charged in state court with first- and second-degree assault. The state then collected a sample of re-spondent's DNA pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act, which requires the collection and analysis of DNA from persons who have been charged with certain criminal offenses. It is undisputed that the state con-ducted the DNA testing not to link respondent to the alleged assault, but rather to determine whether he was implicated in any other offenses. Respondent's DNA profile was matched to a profile from forensic evidence of a previous sexual assault. Based solely on that match, respondent was charged with various offenses arising from the sexual assault, including first-degree rape. Respondent moved to suppress evidence of the DNA match. The trial court denied respondentís motion and later found respondent guilty of first-degree rape. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the warrantless, suspicionless collection and analysis of respondent's DNA violated the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals was entered on April 24, 2012. A motion for reconsideration was denied on May 18, 2012 (Pet. App. 87b). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on August 14, 2012, and granted on November 9, 2012.

Question Presented:

Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?

Question:

Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the warrantless collection and analysis of DNA from a person who has been arrested for, but not convicted of, a criminal offense, solely for use in investigating other offenses for which there is no individualized suspicion.

MARYLAND v. KING
ORAL ARGUMENT

February 26, 2013

Listen to Oral Argument in MARYLAND v. KING
Holding: REVERSED
Vote: 9-0

MARYLAND v. KING
Case Documents

1PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
2REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER
3REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
4BRIEF OF PETITIONER
5BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER
6BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE DNA SAVES, BRING BRI JUSTICE FOUNDATION, KEEP GEORGIA SAFE, THE RAPE, ABUSE & INCEST NATIONAL NETWORK, AND THE SURVIVING PARENTS COALITION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
7BRIEF OF THE GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR RAPID DNA TESTING AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
8BRIEF BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
9BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE DNA SAVES IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
10BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
11BRIEF AMICI CURIAE MARYLAND LEGISLATORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
12BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
13BRIEF FOR THE MARYLAND CRIME VICTIMS' RESOURCE CENTER, INC., NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM LAW INSTITUTE, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF PARENTS OF MURDERED CHILDREN, INC., CRIME VICTIMS UNITED OF CALIFORNIA, D.C. CRIME VICTIMS' RESOURCE CENTER, AND COLORADO ORGANIZATION FOR VICTIM ASSISTANCE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
14BRIEF OF MARYLAND CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., MARYLAND SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION, INC., AND POLICE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, INC. AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
15BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, THE INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
16BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION
17BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT
18BRIEF FOR THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
19BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
20BRIEF FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT
21BRIEF FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL DEFENDERS AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT
22BRIEF OF COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
23BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
24BRIEF OF 14 SCHOLARS OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT
25BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ACLU OF MARYLAND, AND ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING RESPONDENT
26BRIEF OF GENETICS, GENOMICS AND FORENSIC SCIENCE RESEARCHERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
27MARYLAND v. KING Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)
28MARYLAND v. KING Oral Argument Audio
29Slip Opinion in MARYLAND v. KING (Opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy)