Whether the Fourth Amendment permits compulsory DNA collection from convicted offenders on parole or supervised release absent individualized suspicion

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• Declined to followRise

  “Rise, relying on Supreme Court authority that did not mean what Rise thought it meant, authorized searches designed to advance law enforcement interests, and is therefore irreconcilable with the later Supreme Court cases.” — United States v. Kincade, acknowledging the split

• On the other side · 10th Cir.United States v. Kimler335 F.3d 1132

  “Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132 , 2003 WL 21519916 (July 7, 2003), the Tenth Circuit recently disposed of a summary Fourth Amendment challenge to the DNA Act in summary fashion.” — United States v. Kincade, acknowledging the split

• DiscussedJones

  “1210 (D.Kan.1995) (relying on Jones to reject Fourth Amendment challenge to Kansas DNA statute); Sanders v.” — United States v. Kincade, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · Va.Johnson v. Commonwealth259 Va. 654
• Discussed · Nev.Gaines v. Nevada116 Nev. 359
• Discussed · Wyo.Doles v. State994 P.2d 315
• Discussed · Mass.Landry v. Attorney General429 Mass. 336
• Discussed · Ariz.In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action187 Ariz. 419
• Discussed · Mo.Ct.App.Cooper v. Gammon943 S.W.2d 699
• Discussed · Ill.App.People v. Wealer264 Ill.App.3d 6
• Discussed · Or.App.In re Orozco129 Or.App. 148
• Discussed · Wash.State v. Olivas122 Wash.2d 73
• Discussed · W.D.Wis.Shelton v. Gudmanson934 F.Supp. 1048
• Discussed · D.Minn.Kruger v. Erickson875 F.Supp. 583
• Discussed · D.Kan.Vanderlinden v. Kansas874 F.Supp. 1210

  “1210 (D.Kan.1995) (relying on Jones to reject Fourth Amendment challenge to Kansas DNA statute); Sanders v.” — United States v. Kincade, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · E.D.N.C.Sanders v. Coman864 F.Supp. 496
• Discussed · E.D.Wash.Ryncarz824 F.Supp. 1493

  “496 (E.D.N.C.1994) (relying on Jones to reject Fourth Amendment challenge to North Carolina statute); Ryncarz, 824 F.Supp.” — United States v. Kincade, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:

Chandler v. Miller520 U.S. 305 ·

Edmond531 U.S. 32

Doctrines & tests:

special needs (beyond the normal need for law enforcement) ·

primary purpose test

Constitutional provisions:

Fourth Amendment