In the Matter of the Welfare of M.L.M.,, Minn.Ct.App., 4/20/10, review granted, 6/29/10. M.L.M. and a buddy stole some clothes from a department store, damaged said clothing, then ran from the cops before getting caught. Among other things, the state charged M.L.M. with various theft related offenses, with property damage, and with fleeing a peace officer. She eventually settled the case for a gross misdemeanor theft adjudication, for which the juvenile court ordered her to submit to a DNA sample. Ms. M.L.M. argued that this was unconstitutional.
The statute that purports to authorize the DNA collection is Minn.Stat. 609.117, subd. 1(2), which kicks in when the court “adjudicates a person a delinquent child who is petitioned for committing or attempting to commit a felony offense and is adjudicated delinquent for that offense or any offense arising out of the same set of circumstances.” The Minnesota Supreme Court had already rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to this sort of DNA data mining for adults convicted of felony offenses, State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. 2008); and the Court of Appeals had ruled similarly in the case of someone convicted of a misdemeanor arising from the same set of circumstances as a charged felony offense. State v. Johnson, 777 N.W.2d 767, 772 (Minn. App. 2010), pet. for review granted(Minn. April 20, 2010). For more on Mr. Johnson, go here.
The appellate court rejects the challenge to the DNA collection, but the opinion is currently pending review by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment