ICMA signed onto an amicus curiae brief filed by State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of Maryland’s DNA arrest law. In Maryland v. King the Supreme Court will decide whether the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA, without a warrant, from people arrested and charged with serious crimes.

This case matters to local government because it shares the responsibility of deterring and solving crime.  Twenty-eight states and the federal government have adopted DNA arrest laws. 

Alonzo King was arrested on first and second degree assault charges. Maryland’s DNA Collection Act allows state and local law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from those arrested for crimes or attempted crimes of violence and burglary or attempted burglary.  A DNA sample was collected from King the day he was arrested. King’s DNA profile matched with a profile developed from a DNA sample collected in an unsolved rape case.  

Maryland’s highest state court held that the state’s DNA arrest law violated King’s Fourth Amendment rights after weighing King’s “expectation of privacy to be free from warrantless searches of his biological material” and Maryland’s interest in identifying arrestees accurately and solving cold cases.

The SLLC’s amicus brief argues that DNA arrest laws are presumed constitutional and have been adopted based on sound policy considerations including the fact that they help prevent and solve crime, they balance the interests of the state and arrestees, and they save state and local governments money.

Oral argument was heard in this case on January 8, 2013.  The Supreme Court will issue an opinion in this case by June 30, 2013.