Maryland v. King

• Decision Date: 30 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 12A48.,12A48.
• Citation: 567 U.S. 1301,183 L.Ed.2d 667,133 S.Ct. 1
• Parties: MARYLAND v. Alonzo Jay KING, Jr.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

567 U.S. 1301

133 S.Ct. 1

183 L.Ed.2d 667

MARYLAND

v.Alonzo Jay KING, Jr.

No. 12A48.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 30, 2012.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, Circuit Justice.

Maryland's DNA Collection Act, Md. Pub. Saf. Code Ann. § 2 – 501et seq. (Lexis 2011), authorizes law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples from individuals charged with but not yet convicted of certain crimes, mainly violent crimes and first-degree burglary. In 2009, police arrested Alonzo Jay King, Jr., for first-degree assault. When personnel at the booking facility collected his DNA, they found it matched DNA evidence from a rape committed in 2003. Relying on the match, the State charged and successfully convicted King of, among other things, first degree rape. A divided Maryland Court of Appeals overturned King's conviction, holding the collection of his DNA violated the Fourth Amendment because his expectation of privacy outweighed the State's interests. 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012). Maryland now applies for a stay of that judgment pending this Court's disposition of its petition for a writ of certiorari.

To warrant that relief, Maryland must demonstrate (1) "a reasonable probability" that this Court will grant certiorari, (2) "a fair prospect" that the Court will then reverse the decision below, and (3) "a likelihood that irreparable harm [will] result from the denial of a stay." Conkright v. Frommert, 556 U.S. 1401, 1402, 129 S.Ct. 1861, 173 L.Ed.2d 865 (2009) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers) (Internal quotation marks omitted).

To begin, there is a reasonable probability this Court will grant certiorari. Maryland's decision conflicts with decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits as well as the Virginia Supreme Court, which have upheld statutes similar to Maryland's DNA Collection Act. See United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (C.A.3 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1275, 132 S.Ct. 1741, 182 L.Ed.2d 558 (2012) ; Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (C.A.9 2012), reh'g en banc granted, 686 F.3d 1121 (C.A.9 2012) ; Anderson v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 469, 650 S.E.2d 702 (2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1054, 128 S.Ct. 2473, 171 L.Ed.2d 769 (2008) ; see also Mario W. v. Kaipio, 230 Ariz. 122, 281 P.3d 476, 2012 WL 2401343 (Ariz.2012) (holding that seizure of a juvenile's buccal cells does not violate the Fourth Amendment but that extracting a DNA profile before the juvenile is convicted does).

The split implicates an important feature of day-to-day law enforcement practice in approximately half the States and the Federal Government. Reply to Memorandum in Opposition 3; see 114 Stat. 2728, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1)(A) (authorizing the Attorney General to "collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted"). Indeed, the decision below has direct effects beyond Maryland: Because the DNA samples Maryland collects may otherwise be eligible for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's national DNA database, the decision renders the database less effective for other States and the Federal Government. These factors make it reasonably probable that the Court will grant certiorari to resolve the split on the question presented. In addition, given the considered analysis of courts on the other side of the split, there is a fair prospect that this Court will reverse the decision below.

Finally, the decision below subjects Maryland to ongoing irreparable harm. "[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes...