California and the Fourth Amendment
By Editorial,
The New York Times
| 09. 18. 2012
On Wednesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is scheduled to reconsider whether California violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against searches and seizures by requiring police to take DNA samples from people arrested but not yet convicted of felonies. California’s law is ostensibly aimed at accurately identifying those arrested, solving crimes and exonerating the innocent. It is also, unfortunately, unconstitutional.
An appeals court panel ruled otherwise in February. In a 2-to-1 vote, it said the law was reasonable, a view with prominent support. In July, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that there was “a reasonable probability” that the Supreme Court would address the issue this term in a Maryland case and that there was “a fair prospect” that it would rule as the appeals court panel had in the California case. This is a matter of national import because the federal government and more than half the states have laws allowing DNA sampling before conviction.
The constitutional outcome should be clear. Unless there is a warrant, or suspicion of a different crime that a DNA...
Related Articles
By Emma McDonald Kennedy
| 09.25.2025
In the leadup to the 2024 election, Donald Trump repeatedly promised to make IVF more accessible. He made the commitment central to his campaign, even referring to himself as the “father of IVF.” In his first month in office, Trump issued an executive order promising to expand IVF access. The order set a 90-day deadline for policy recommendations for “lowering costs and reducing barriers to IVF,” although it didn’t make any substantive reproductive healthcare policy changes.
The response to the...
By Jacob Bogage, The Washington Post | 09.03.2025
The conservative group behind the Project 2025 governing playbook for President Donald Trump’s second term is set to propose sweeping revisions to U.S. economic policy meant to encourage married heterosexual couples to have more children.
The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing...
By Caroline Kitchener, The New York Times | 08.21.2025
Less than two weeks after an Alabama Supreme Court decision upended in vitro fertilization in the state and prompted a national backlash, over 100 conservative congressional staff members and I.V.F. skeptics crammed into a meeting room a few blocks from...
By Carter Sherman, The Guardian | 08.23.2025
For Erica L and her husband, in-vitro fertilization was the “nuclear option”.
After two years of trying to conceive, Erica and her husband had no idea why they could not have a baby. Doctors said only that they had “unexplained...