15 U. Pa. J. Const. L. remains available for processing thereafter, and no Biometric Databases, (forthcoming Summer 2012), exigency exists warranting an earlier suspicionless available at http://ssrn. com/abstract=2043259 (“Realistically, search. the sole purpose of arrestee sampling ... is intelligence.”). Having a DNA profile before IV. adjudication may conceivably speed such investigations. But one accused of a crime, For the reasons we vacate the opinion of the although having diminished expectations of court of appeals, and we remand the cases to the privacy in some respects, does not forfeit Fourth superior court for proceedings consistent with this Amendment protections with respect to other opinion. offenses not charged absent either probable cause or reasonable suspicion. An arrest for vehicular *484 CONCURRING: REBECCA BERCH, homicide, for example, cannot alone justify a Chief Justice, W. SCOTT BALES, A. JOHN warrantless search of an arrestee’s financial records PELANDER and ROBERT M. BRUTINEL, to see if he is also an embezzler. Justices. Thus, we find no state interest sufficient to justify Parallel Citations the serious intrusion on the privacy interests of the 281 P.3d 476, 637 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22 Juveniles occasioned by the second search—the extraction of the DNA profile from the buccal swab before adjudication or failure to appear. The swab End of Document © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No to original U.S. Government Works.
Biometric Databases, 15 U. Pa. J. Const. L. (forthcoming Summer 2012), available at http://ssrn. com/abstract=2043259 (“Realistically, the sole purpose of arrestee sampling ... is intelligence.”). Having a DNA profile before adjudication may conceivably speed such investigations. But one accused of a crime, although having diminished expectations of privacy in some respects, does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protections with respect to other offenses not charged absent either probable cause or reasonable suspicion. An arrest for vehicular homicide, for example, cannot alone justify a warrantless search of an arrestee’s financial records to see if he is also an embezzler. Thus, we find no state interest sufficient to justify the serious intrusion on the privacy interests of the Juveniles occasioned by the second search—the extraction of the DNA profile from the buccal swab before adjudication or failure to appear. The swab remains available for processing thereafter, and no exigency exists warranting an earlier suspicionless search. IV. For the reasons we vacate the opinion of the court of appeals, and we remand the cases to the superior court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. *484 CONCURRING: REBECCA BERCH, Chief Justice, W. SCOTT BALES, A. JOHN PELANDER and ROBERT M. BRUTINEL, Justices. Parallel Citations 281 P.3d 476, 637 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22 End of Document © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No to original U.S. Government Works.
2016-Transfer-Write-On-FINAL.docx