State v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services (2013), State v. McKinney (2007)
4 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3583
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Bell v. Wolfish · Payton v. New York
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Collection of DNA samples: "(a) In general.— "(1) In accordance with regulations adopted under this subtitle, and if adequate funds for the collection of DNA samples are appropriated in the State budget, an individual who is convicted of a felony or a violation of § 6-205 or § 6-206 of the Criminal Law Article shall: "(i) have a DNA sample collected on intake to a correctional facility, if the individual is sentenced to a term of imprisonment; or "(ii) provide a DNA sample as a condition of sentence or probation, if the individual is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment. "(2) If adequate funds for the collection of DNA samples are appropriated in the State budget, an individual who was convicted of a felony or a violation of § 6-205 or § 6-206 of the Criminal Law Article on or before October 1, 2003 and who remains confined in a correctional facility on or after October 1, 1999, shall submit a DNA sample to the Department. "(b) Place of collection.—In accordance with regulations adopted under this subtitle, each DNA sample required to be collected under this section shall be collected: "(1) at the correctional facility where the individual is confined, if the individual is confined in a correctional facility on or after October 1, 2003, or is sentenced to a term of imprisonment on or after October 1,2003; or "(2) at a facility specified by the Director, if the individual is on probation or is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment. "(c) Authorized collectors.—A DNA sampl”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Although the intrusion of a buccal swab may be minimal in a physical sense, it certainly is great when the vast amount of personal and private information DNA contains is considered. As we recently explained: While the DNA profile is often referred to as a type of genetic ‘fingerprint,’ this analogy is far too simplistic. Although current profiling methods utilize only limited amounts of genetic information, with the mapping of the human genome now underway, future DNA analysis may soon reveal an individual’s medical history; proclivity toward certain diseases; and hereditary information such as race, physical, and behavioral traits. Thus, biological samples ... have the potential to reveal far more intimate information about the individual donor than a single fingerprint. ... Unlike an individual’s fingerprint, which use is limited to identification, [because a person’s fingerprint can only identify a person] information potentially contained in a DNA profile may subject an individual to embarrassment, humiliation, public hostility, and even financial harm.” % í’js :¡: * “Unlike fingerprints, which contain all of the useable identifying information at the time the prints are taken, the DNA search does not end with the swab. To the contrary, the swab is then subjected to scientific tests, which may extract very sensitive, personal, and potentially humiliating information.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be granted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.