Calif. Sup Crt Justices Seem OK With DNA-Based Warrant

Related: ACLU Lawsuit Challenges California's Mandatory DNA Collection at Arrest

Calif. Justices Seem OK With DNA-Based Warrant

Mike McKee
The Recorder
November 05, 2009

When California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George advised West Hills, Calif., attorney Cara DeVito that her time was up if she wanted to save a few minutes for rebuttal during oral arguments Tuesday, she let out a soft moan.

"But I've got so much more to say," she said mock sadly.

Time got away from DeVito as the seven justices hit her with a barrage of questions in an important criminal case involving DNA profiling.

The justices may have been playing to the on-campus audience of students at UC-Berkeley School of Law's Booth Auditorium, but their questions indicated they've given the case lots of thought -- and it didn't look good for DeVito.

At issue in People v. Robinson , S158528, is whether an unknown suspect's DNA profile -- as opposed to a physical description -- can satisfy the so-called particularity requirement for issuing a "John Doe" warrant, and whether such warrants toll the statute of limitations for bringing criminal charges.

A third issue is whether the unlawful collection of a blood sample violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

DeVito represented Paul Robinson, an alleged serial rapist found guilty of an August 1994 assault on a Sacramento woman who wasn't sure of his race and had only a vague physical description.

Four days before the six-year statute of limitations for filing charges expired on Aug. 25, 2000, prosecutors filed a "John Doe" complaint describing the then-unknown defendant from a DNA profile developed from semen at the assault site. The next day, an arrest warrant was issued, tied to the DNA profile.

The warrant for Robinson's arrest was executed three weeks later based on a match from the state's DNA databank.

The defense argued that a DNA profile lacked the statutory requirement that a warrant contain "sufficient descriptive material" -- such as race, height, body build -- to indicate "with reasonable particularity" the identification of the proposed arrestee.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter Mering disagreed, as did Sacramento's 3rd District Court of Appeal in 2007.

[...]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435187887