Haskell

Haskell v. Brown

Good Law
677 F. Supp. 2d 1187·2009 WL 5062184·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123909
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 23, 2009C 09-04779 CRBCalifornia8,117 words

Opinion

Opinion

Breyer, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the enforcement of California Penal Code § 296(a)(2)(C), which provides for the mandatory DNA sampling of felony arrestees in the State of California. Plaintiffs allege that this section violates both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Although Plaintiffs argue convincingly that arrestees have greater privacy interests than convicted felons, from whom the Ninth Circuit has already condoned the taking of DNA samples, Plaintiffs have not established that they are likely to succeed, or that the balance of the equities tips in their favor. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

1. DNA Seizure, Analysis and Ex-pungement in California

California has collected biological samples for its law enforcement database since 1984. Opp. at 2 (citing 1983 Cal. Stat. Ch. 700, § 1 (repealed 1998)). In 1998, California’s Legislature enacted the DNA Act, which authorized the seizure of DNA from individuals convicted of certain serious and violent crimes. Opp. at 2 (citing 1998 Cal. Stat. Ch. 696, § 2). Then, in November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 69, which enacted Penal Code section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.