Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

United States v. Kincade - 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004)

Rule:

In light of conditional releasees' substantially diminished expectations of privacy, the minimal intrusion occasioned by blood sampling, and the overwhelming societal interests so clearly furthered by the collection of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) information from convicted offenders, the court must conclude that compulsory DNA profiling of qualified federal offenders is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit squarely holds that the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-546, 114 Stat. 2726, satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Facts:

Pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, individuals who had been convicted of certain federal crimes and who were incarcerated, or on parole, probation, or supervised release were required to provide federal authorities with a bodily sample on which an analysis of that sample's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification information could be performed. Defendant, who was on probation, refused to submit a blood sample, explaining that his objections were purely a matter of personal preference. Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the DNA Act on grounds that it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Fourth Amendment, and separation of powers principles embodied in Article III and the Due Process Clause. The district court rejected defendant’s constitutional challenges to the DNA Act. Concluding that defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release by refusing to follow his probation officer's lawful instruction to provide a blood sample, the district. court judge sentenced defendant to four months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release. While defendant was serving his additional supervised release, defendant again tested positive for drug use. Consequently, the district court judge lifted defendant’s stay, and, once in custody, defendant was forced to submit to DNA profiling. Defendant persisted in his challenge to the Act. 

Issue:

Did the Fourth Amendment permit compulsory DNA profiling of certain conditionally-released federal offenders in the absence of individualized suspicion that they had committed additional crimes? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the court balanced the degree to which DNA profiling interfered with privacy interests of qualified federal offenders against the significance of the public interests served by such profiling. In light of conditional releasees' substantially diminished expectations of privacy, the minimal intrusion occasioned by blood sampling, and the overwhelming societal interests so clearly furthered by the collection of DNA information from convicted offenders, the court concluded that compulsory DNA profiling of qualified federal offenders was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the judgment and accompanying sentence of the district court were affirmed.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates