Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
November 2, 2005, Argued ; March 17, 2006, Decided
DOCKET NO. A-2320-04T3, A-2671-04T3
[*78] [**38] The opinion of the court was delivered by
[*79] GRALL, J.A.D.
This appeal is from a final order in a declaratory judgment action concerning the constitutionality of the DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994 (the Act), N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.17 to -20.28, as amended by [***2] L. 2003, c. 183, § 1. The Act establishes a databank and database consisting of biological samples and DNA profiles of certain offenders. N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.20g, h; N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.21. Its purpose is to provide "an important tool in criminal investigations and in deterring and detecting recidivist acts." N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.18.
Plaintiffs, A.A., by his parent and guardian B.A., and Jamaal W. Allah became subject to the Act when it was amended, effective September 22, 2003, to require any person serving a sentence of supervision as a consequence of conviction or adjudication of delinquency based on conduct classified as a crime to submit a biological sample. N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.20 g, h; see L. 2003, c. 118. 1 On that date, Allah was serving a sentence of incarceration as a result of two convictions for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5, one for a crime of the second degree and one for a crime of the third degree. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b (2)-(3). On the same date, A.A. was on probation as a result [***3] of an adjudication of delinquency based upon conduct that would have constituted aggravated assault contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a) if A.A. had been eighteen rather than fourteen years of age at the time of the assault.
On January 22, 2004, plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. They named as defendants the Attorney [*80] General, who is responsible for administering the Act through the Division of State Police (division), as well as the Department of Corrections and the Mercer County Probation Services, two of the entities that collect biological samples from offenders. [***4] 2 Plaintiffs alleged that the Act exceeds constitutional limitations on searches and ex post facto laws and deprives them of due process of law. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1; U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV; N.J. Const. art. I, PP 1, 7 and N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, P 3. The issues were decided on the basis of briefs and certifications, including documentary evidence.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
384 N.J. Super. 67 *; 894 A.2d 31 **; 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 75 ***
A.A., BY HIS PARENT AND GUARDIAN B.A., AND JAMAAL W. ALLAH, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY AND THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND MERCER COUNTY PROBATION SERVICES, DEFENDANT. A.A., BY HIS PARENT AND GUARDIAN B.A., AND JAMAAL W. ALLAH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY AND THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND MERCER COUNTY PROBATION SERVICES, DEFENDANT.
Subsequent History: [***1] Approved for Publication March 17, 2006. As Corrected August 28, 2006.
Certification granted A.A. ex rel. B.A. v. Attorney General of New Jersey, 186 N.J. 366, 895 A.2d 452, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 397 (2006)
Affirmed by A.A. v. Attorney General of New Jersey, 189 N.J. 128, 914 A.2d 260, 2007 N.J. LEXIS 15 (2007)
offenders, profiles, testing, special needs, detecting, intrusion, biological sample, fingerprints, sentence, database, samples, collection, identification, searches, law enforcement, post-sentence, deterring, juveniles, expungement, The Act, regulations, recidivism, purposes, privacy, delinquent, recidivist, deterrence, convicted, databank, plaintiffs'