California Supreme Court Upholds the State's Problematic Arrestee DNA Collection Law
By Jennifer Lynch,
Electronic Frontier Foundation
| 04. 02. 2018
In a disappointing and deeply divided opinion released today, the California Supreme Court upheld a state law law mandating DNA collection from arrestees. A lower court had held this law violated the privacy and search and seizure protections guaranteed under the California constitution. Today’s decision lets this flawed law stand.
The case, People v. Buza, involved a San Francisco man who challenged his conviction for refusing to provide a DNA sample after he was arrested. California law allows police to collect DNA from anyone arrested on suspicion of a felony—without a warrant or any finding by a judge that there was sufficient cause for the arrest. The state stores arrestees’ DNA samples indefinitely, and allows DNA profiles to be searched continuously by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
EFF weighed in on the case in 2015, filing an amicus brief arguing the state’s constitution prohibits the collection of DNA from arrestees because of the severe impact DNA collection has on our right to privacy. Our DNA contains our entire genetic makeup—private and personal information that maps who we are, where we... see more
Related Articles
By Fabiola Cineas , Vox | 07.13.2022
Photo by Harrison Mitchell on Unsplash
To understand how the United States of America became a country without the constitutional right to abortion, look to the history of Black women’s long fight for reproductive autonomy.
The reproductive coercion of Black...
By Lisa C. Ikemoto, Los Angeles Times | 07.07.2022
A few days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, Boston IVF, a fertility company with centers in six states, posted a statement that speaks to the havoc this decision will wreak not just for abortions, but for...
By Whitney Arey, Ph.D et al.,, The New England Journal of Medicine | 06.22.2022
Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash
When the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the abortion care landscape will most likely be changed for at least a generation. Even before a draft...
By Caroline A. B. Redhead, Jackson Kirkman-Brown, Leah Gilman, Lucy Frith, The Conversation | 07.04.2022
The UK government has just extended the period that gametes (eggs and sperm) and embryos can be stored from ten years to 55 years. While this change will probably be welcomed by people who wish to have fertility treatment...
