People v. Buza - 4 Cal. 5th 658, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 681, 413 P.3d 1132 (2018)

Rule:

The DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act's collection requirement is valid as applied to an individual who is validly arrested on probable cause to hold for a serious offense.

Facts:

In 2004, California voters passed Proposition 69 known as the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act (DNA Act)) to expand existing requirements for the collection of DNA identification information for law enforcement purposes. The DNA Act requires law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples, as well as fingerprints, from all persons who are arrested for, as well as those who have been convicted of, felony offenses. Defendant Mark Buza was arrested for arson and related felonies and transported to jail. At booking, a jail official informed defendant that he was required to provide a DNA sample by swabbing the inside of his cheek. He refused. A jury later convicted him of both the arson-related felonies and the misdemeanor offense of refusing to provide a specimen required by the DNA Act. The Court of Appeal reversed Buza’s misdemeanor refusal conviction, holding that the DNA Act violated defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. While the case was pending on appeal, the United States Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Maryland v. King (2013) 569 U.S. 435 [186 L. Ed. 2d 1, 133 S. Ct. 1958] (King), and reached a different conclusion. The high court held that “[w]hen officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Following the high court's decision in King, this case returned to the Court of Appeal. On remand, the Court of Appeal again reversed defendant's misdemeanor refusal conviction, this time on the ground that the DNA Act violates the California Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Defendant raises a number of questions about the constitutionality of the DNA Act as it applies to various classes of felony arrestees.

Issue:

Was the DNA Act's collection requirement valid?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the DNA Act's collection requirement is valid as applied to an individual who, like Buza, was validly arrested on probable cause to hold for a serious offense - here, the felony arson charge for which defendant was ultimately convicted - and who was required to swab his cheek as part of a routine booking procedure at county jail. Officials asked Buza for a DNA sample upon booking, after he was arrested on probable cause for a serious offense, and as he was entering pretrial detention. Under the circumstances before the court, the requirement was not unreasonable. Because the requirement was reasonable as applied to Buza, he was subject to the statutory penalties prescribed in Pen. Code, § 298.1, for failure to comply.