San Francisco Skyline
BILL OF RIGHTS-- First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-- Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed-- Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law-- Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.-- Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.-- Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law-- Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted-- Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people--Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people--.
Taking the Fifth-A Criminal Law Blog
RSS icon Email icon Bullet (black)
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DENIES TEMPORARY ORDER PROHIBITING DNA TESTING

    Posted on December 24th, 2009 zshapiro No comments

    U. S. District Judge Charles Breyer refused a request by the ACLU for an order to forbid the state of California from enforcing a proposition which requires that everyone arrested on felony charges be required to give a DNA sample.

    The ACLU has sued the state to forbid the enforcement of Proposition 69 which required the taking of a DNA sample from everyone arrested on a felony charge. Prior to the passage of Proposition 69 only those convicted of a sex crime or a serious felony were required to provide DNA samples. The ACLU moved for an order pending the resolution of the suit requiring the state not to enforce the proposition. The ACLU claimed that taking of DNA samples on everyone who is arrested on a felony instead of limiting the samples to those who committed crimes that can be detected by DNA testing. The Fourth Amendment allows only reasonable searches and the ACLU is arguing that the taking of a DNA sample from one’s mouth is a search and that it is unreasonable to take a saliva sample from someone who is not convicted of a crime or from someone charged with a crime where a DNA sample could not help prove guilt or innocence.

    But Judge Brewer ruled that DNA is a tool used to identify people such as finger prints and therefore it is not unreasonable to take a sample. As a result he held that the ACLU is unlikely to win its suit. Therefore he denied the request for a temporary order prohibiting enforcement of the proposition while the suit is pending.

    Leave a Reply