Education Beyond Borders






113 Schools International Mock Trial League 2013-2014

First Day.doc

2013-2014 Schedule.pdf


Legal Information Handy For The Development of Briefs and Arguments

Brief Organizer Homework Assignment

Video 1

Video 2



Competitions Del Valle High School 2013-2014


1. Center for Economic and Civic Education Moot Court    Sat. Oct. 12, 2013 (two teams- 50 dollars fee)   Friday Dec. 6, 2013   Two person teams- unlimited- video conference- no fees.
2. YMCA Appeals Court and Mock Trial court   District Nov. 23  (30 dollars per person)  State Jan 30- Feb. 2 ( 100 dollars per person) Nationals (500 dollars per person plus air fare)  Appeals two people per team  Mock Trials  five people per team- Unlimited VC rounds
3) High School Debate- Public Debate-  Three people per team Monthly debates with WCS 60 high schools   Nationals April, 2014 Los Angeles
4) Ontario Bail Hearing Nov. 2013 - Five people per team- unlimited number of teams- video conference 30 high schools
5) Bickel and Brewer Oct. 31, Teams seven members- two teams- written -  Top 64 November   Finals NYC Top 8 free
6) UIL LD debate- individual event- two tournaments Spring 2014  District 2014
7) NCFL PF- District Jan. 2014  Nationals in Chicago  District free-  Nationals fee
8) World Class Schools - ICC Moot Court Spring- teams- two people- unlimited VC
9) LSPI El Paso Moot Court two teams- US Supreme Court  two people per team- one side of the case only
10) Harlan Institute- Spring 2014 Like the above but entirely VC two people per team- six teams
11) South Australian Mock trials  Feb.  2014- five people per team  unlimited VC
12) South African Moot Court- two people per team  March 2014 unlimited VC
13) Ontario Challenge- Moot Court two people per team April 2014 unlimited VC
14) Law Day Challenge- Ft. Hood- Moot UMC  April 2014
15) Center for Economic Civic Challenge  Spring 2014  Moot Court - Unlimited VC
16)  Youth Parliament April 29, 2014  everyone
17) National Urban Moot Court and Mock Trial League- all through out the year
18) International Public Forum League- Weekly, Monthly, Video Conferences  teams of two- topics change monthly

19) Poetry Aloud,  December School,  Feb. State,  July Nationals DC

First Case

Textbooks  Download both the Student and Teacher Packet as well as Brief Template and IRAC

Ninth Annual Moot Court Competition:
Saturday, October 12, 2013

Extra Materials

Maryland v. King

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
12-207 Md. Feb 26, 2013
Jun 3, 2013 5-4 Kennedy OT 2012


Holding: When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold a suspect for a serious offense and bring him to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 3, 2013. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Date Proceedings and Orders
Jul 13 2012 Application (12A48) for a stay of the judgment and mandate pending the filing and disposition of a for a writ of certiorari, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jul 18 2012 UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and mandate of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, case No. 68, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Wednesday, July 25, 2012, by 4 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
Jul 20 2012 Response to application from respondent Alonzo Jay King, Jr. filed.
Jul 23 2012 Reply of applicant Maryland filed.
Jul 26 2012 Letter submitted by respondent
Jul 30 2012 Application (12A48) granted by The Chief Justice. (In Chambers Opinion)
Aug 14 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 17...
Sep 4 2012 Brief amici curiae of Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, Inc., ...
Sep 11 2012 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 17, 2012.
Sep 12 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Steve Cooley, District Attorney for the County of filed.
Sep 17 2012 Brief amicus curiae of DNA Saves filed.
Sep 17 2012 Brief amici curiae of Maryland Legislators filed.
Sep 17 2012 Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorneys Association filed.
Oct 12 2012 Brief of respondent Alonzo Jay King, Jr. in opposition filed.
Oct 24 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 9, 2012.
Oct 24 2012 Reply of petitioner Maryland filed. (Distributed)
Nov 9 2012 Petition GRANTED.
Nov 21 2012 Record Received from the Maryland Court of Appeals. 2 volumes.
Nov 27 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Dec 4 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Dec 18 2012 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Dec 26 2012 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Dec 26 2012 Brief of petitioner Maryland filed.
Dec 28 2012 Brief amici curiae of Genetics, Genomics and Forensic Science Resea...
Dec 28 2012 Brief amicus curiae of National District Attorneys Association filed.
Jan 2 2013 Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
Jan 2 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Governors Association, et al. filed.
Jan 2 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Los Angeles County District Attorney on beha...
Jan 2 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Global Alliance for Rapid DNA Testing filed.
Jan 2 2013 Brief amici curiae of DNA Saves, et al. filed.
Jan 2 2013 Brief amici curiae of Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc....
Jan 2 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Susana Martinez, Governor of the State of Ne...
Jan 2 2013 Brief amici curiae of California, et al. filed.
Jan 2 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault fi...
Jan 2 2013 Brief amici curiae of Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, Inc., ...
Jan 9 2013 Additional record received from the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Part of this record is electronic.
Jan 10 2013 CIRCULATED.
Jan 25 2013 Brief of respondent Alonzo Jay King, Jr. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 1 2013 brief amicus curiae of Veterans for Common Sense filed. (Distributed)
Feb 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Civil Rights...
Feb 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center and tw...
Feb 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Public Defenders Service for the District of...


Maryland v. King

Concerning the Constitutionality of Mandatory DNA Collection Pre-Conviction

Top News

  • National Institutes of Health Protects Genetic Privacy of HeLa Cells: The National Institutes of Health has agreed to safeguard Henrietta Lacks's family genetic privacy while still allowing research on the famous HeLa cells. During her fight against an aggressive form of cervical cancer in the 1950s, Henrietta Lacks's cells were given to scientists, without her consent, for experimentation because of their ability to replicate in a lab setting. Her cells are still used today for scientific research. EPIC previously submitted comments to the Department of Health and Human Services and argued for stronger privacy protections for genetic data. More recently, EPIC filed a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King arguing for limited law enforcement access to DNA. For more information, see EPIC: Maryland v. King and EPIC: Genetic Privacy. (Aug. 12, 2013)
  • Supreme Court Rules Against DNA Privacy: A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that law enforcement may warrantlessly collect DNA samples from people arrested, but not yet convicted, of crimes. In Maryland v. King, the Court held that when the police have probable cause to arrest someone, the collection of DNA is analogous to fingerprinting or photographing. The decision was 5-4. Writing in dissent, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, stated "Make no mistake about it: . . . your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." EPIC wrote a "friend of the court" brief arguing against warrantless DNA searches. EPIC's brief described the rapid expansion of DNA collection in the United States and the lack of sufficient safeguards for private genetic information. For more information, see EPIC: Maryland v. King and EPIC: Genetic Privacy. (Jun. 3, 2013)
  • Supreme Court to Hear Arguments On Warrantless DNA Collection: Today the U.S. Supreme Court will arguments on whether the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless, suspicion less DNA collection from anyone arrested, but not convicted, of a "serious crime." In Maryland v. King, Maryland will argue that states should be permitted to use DNA to investigate cold cases even when the arrestee is not a suspect. King will explain that the Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause warrant for routine law enforcement investigations. EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief, joined by the 27 technical experts and legal scholars, that describes how DNA collection and use "has grown dramatically and unpredictably over time." EPIC has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the decision of the Maryland Supreme Court, which held that a warrant is required for the collection of a DNA sample. For more information, see EPIC: Maryland v. King and EPIC: Genetic Privacy. (Feb. 26, 2013)
  • EPIC Urges Supreme Court to Protect Genetic Privacy: EPIC has filed a "friend of the court" brief in Maryland v. King, arguing that law enforcement's warrantless collection of DNA is unconstitutional. EPIC's brief describes the "dramatic and unpredictable" expansion of the government's DNA collection over the past decade. In the brief for the U.S. Supreme Court, EPIC said that the Fourth Amendment limits "the otherwise unbounded collection and use of the individual's DNA sample by government." The EPIC brief was joined by 26 technical experts and legal scholars.EPIC has previously filed amicus briefs in several DNA cases before federal and state courts. For more information, see EPIC: Maryland v. King and EPIC: Genetic Privacy. (Feb. 4, 2013)
  • New Study Finds Limits in Deidentification of DNA Samples: A recent paper published in Science reveals that deidentified DNA sequences collected for research purposes can be used to identify the subjects under certain circumstances. According to the article, the information posted by the 1,000 Genomes Project - age, state of residence, and full DNA sequence - used in combination with publicly available genealogy data was enough to narrow the search to a few likely individuals. A Science Policy Forum article concludes that this "reveals the need to re-examine the current paradigms for managing the potential identifiability of genomic and other 'omic'-type data." The President's Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues recently reviewed the ethical and privacy implications of the use and collection of genetic data. And the Supreme Court is set to hear a case next month involving the warrantless collection and use of genetic information by law enforcement agencies. For more information, see EPIC: Maryland v. King and EPIC: Genetic Privacy. (Jan. 17, 2013)
  • Supreme Court to Review DNA Collection Law: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Maryland v. King, a challenge to the constitutionality of the State's DNA Collection Act. The Act authorizes law enforcement to collect DNA samples from individuals arrested, but not convicted, for certain crimes. The lower court held that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant because the warrantless collection of DNA from a mere arrestee was an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Maryland court previously upheld the Act as applied to convicted felons in State v. Raines. EPIC filed an amicus brief in Raines and other cases involving compelled DNA collection in California, Louisiana, and the District of Columbia. EPIC has argued that the privacy implications of DNA collection are greater than fingerprint collection. A recent report from the President's Commission on Bioethics recommends limiting law enforcement access to DNA information. For more information, see EPIC: Genetic Privacy and EPIC: DNA Act. (Nov. 13, 2012)
  • Presidential Commission Urges Privacy Protections for DNA Data: Noting the rapid advances in the use of genetic data, the report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues recommended "a consistent floor of privacy protections covering whole genome sequence data regardless of how they were obtained. These policies should protect individual privacy by prohibiting unauthorized whole genome sequencing without the consent of the individual from whom the sample came." The Commission further said "Only in exceptional circumstances should entities such as law enforcement or defense and security have access to biospecimens or whole genome sequence data for non health-related purposes without consent." The Presidential Commission offered additional recommendations on "Ethical Principles," "Policy and Governance," and "Analysis and Recommendations." Earlier this year, EPIC provided comments to the Commission, and proposed new safeguards for genetic data and limit law enforcement access. EPIC also recommended that the Commission build upon existing genetic privacy and medical laws to enhance individual control over their genetic information. For more information, see EPIC: Genetic Privacy and EPIC: Medical Record Privacy. (Oct. 15, 2012)
  • EPIC Calls for Genetic Privacy Protections: EPIC submitted comments to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, urging the advisory panel to protect genetic privacy in large-scale human genome sequence data. The Commission requested comments pertaining to the "privacy of individuals, research subjects, patients, and their families" as the government moves closer to large-scale human genome sequencing. EPIC Advisory Board member, Professor Anita L. Allen serves as a Commissioner for the Presidential advisory panel. EPIC recommended that the Commission build upon genetic privacy and medical laws such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act("GINA") and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule to protect genetic data. EPIC also recommended that individuals should be given property rights over their genetic data. For more information, see EPIC: Genetic Privacy and EPIC: Medical Record Privacy. (May. 29, 2012)
  • Minnesota Supreme Court Limits Use of Baby DNA: The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that the state Genetic Privacy Act limits the use of blood samples collected from newborns. Minnesota initiated the Newborn Screening Program in 1965 in order to screen children for certain metabolic disorders. Over 73,000 samples are added to the database every year, but the sample were used for other purposes by the Department of Health and outside research organizations. In overruling a lower courts decision, the state Supreme Court found that the samples are "Genetic Information" under the State Genetic Privacy Act and held that "unless otherwise provided, the Department must have written informed consent to collect, use, store, or disseminate [the blood samples]." For more information, see EPIC: Genetic Privacy. (Nov. 17, 2011)
  • EPIC Urges Court to Limit Pre-Trial DNA Collection from Defendants: EPIC filed a 'friend of the court' brief in US v. Pool. The Ninth Circuit case challenges the constitutionality of a federal law requiring every felony defendant to submit a DNA sample as a condition of pre-trial release. The DNA is used to create profiles in a national DNA index system. EPIC observed that "today's science shows that DNA reveals vastly more personal information than a fingerprint," noting "DNA samples contain genetic information that can reveal personal traits such as race, ethnicity and gender, as well as medical risk for conditions such as diabetes." The government keeps the full DNA sample indefinitely, retaining all of an individual's genetic information. A three-judge panel previously upheld the law, but an eleven-judge panel is now rehearing the case. For more information, see EPIC: US v. Pool, and EPIC: Genetic Privacy. (Jul. 26, 2011)

Questions Presented

  • Whether the Fourth Amendment allows the states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes.


The Maryland Supreme Court recently considered the constitutionality of certain portions of Maryland's DNA Collection Act, amended in 2008, which allows collection of DNA samples from "individuals arrested for crimes (or attempted crimes) of violence or burglary prior to being found guilty or pleading guilty." King v. State of Maryland, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. 2012). The court in King held that the warrantless collection of defendant Alonzo King's DNA upon his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to hear the case.

Factual Background

Alonzo King was arrested in Maryland for assault in April 2009. At the time of his arrest, pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act, police collected a DNA sample from him using a cheek swab. The Act requires law enforcement to collect DNA samples from all individuals arrested for violent crimes. This sample was processed and profiled, then entered into a law enforcement database and compared to DNA profiles from unsolved "cold" cases. King's DNA matched a sample gathered from an unsolved sexual assault in 2003.

With a "hit" from the DNA database as the sole piece of probable cause against King, a grand jury indicted him on ten charges, including rape. The police obtained a search warrant to collect a second DNA sample, via buccal swab, from King to investigate these new charges. The second buccal swab also matched the DNA sample taken from the sexual assault. This new evidence ultimately led to King being convicted of rape and sentenced to life without parole.

The Maryland DNA Act

The Maryland DNA Collection Act was originally enacted in 1994. It authorized the collection of DNA in order to "assist an official investigation of a crime; to identify human remains; to identify missing persons;" and other purposes. In 2008, the Act was amended to allow the State to collect DNA from people arrested for burglary, or violent crimes, at the time of their arrest.

Law enforcement takes the DNA sample from the arrestee, analyzes it, and the resulting profile is entered into the FBI's CODIS database. When DNA is analyzed under the Act, law enforcement specifically targets thirteen sections, or "loci," known as "non-coding" DNA. If the profile creates any "hits" to open cases, this creates probable cause to obtain a warrant for a second DNA sample from the suspect. Only this second sample is admissible as evidence at trial.

The Maryland Supreme Court's Decision

At his sexual assault and rape trial, the court denied King's motion to suppress the DNA evidence. King pled not guilty to the charges in order to preserve his constitutional challenge to the DNA collection. King appealed his conviction to the Maryland Supreme Court, alleging that the warrantless DNA collection was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and that the Maryland DNA act was unconstitutional.

The Maryland Supreme Court, after reviewing many similar cases from other jurisdictions, concluded that the DNA Act was unconstitutional as applied in King's case. To reach this conclusion, the court applied the "totality of the circumstances" test laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Knights. That test requires weighing the intrusion upon individual privacy versus the promotion of a legitimate government interest.

The court said that arrestees, unlike convicts or parolees, have strong privacy rights because they are still cloaked with the presumption of innocence until they are found guilty of a crime. "King, as an arrestee, had an expectation of privacy to be free from warrantless searches of his biological material and all of the information contained within that material." The court stated that DNA is fundamentally different from other biological materials. "A DNA sample, obtained through a buccal swab, contains within it unarguably much more than a person's identity. Although the Maryland DNA Collection Act restricts the DNA profile to identifying information only, we can not turn a blind eye to the vast genetic treasure map that remains in the DNA sample retained by the State."

Meanwhile, the interest asserted by the State in this case was weakly attenuated to DNA collection. The State argued that the DNA act sought to further the identification of arrestees. The court disagreed with this argument, noting that DNA analysis is slow, whereas fingerprinting and photographs are much more efficient identification mechanisms. The real purpose of DNA collection, concluded the court, is to further investigation of unsolved crimes.

"Although we have recognized (and no one can reasonably deny) that solving cold cases is a legitimate government interest, a warrantless, suspicionless search can not be upheld by a 'generalized interest' in solving crimes." The court held that the DNA act was therefore unconstitutional as applied to King and reversed the decision of the lower court.

At The U.S. Supreme Court

The State filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision pending petition for certiorari. Chief Justice Roberts, applying the Conkright test, granted the stay. "Collecting DNA from individuals arrested for violent felonies provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from the general population." Chief Justice Roberts noted that the Maryland Supreme Court decision also lessens the effectiveness of law enforcement in other jurisdictions because it removes potential Maryland offenders from the FBI CODIS database. On November 9, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the State of Maryland's appeal.

The Question Presented is: "Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?"

EPIC's Interest in Maryland v. King

EPIC has a longstanding interest in personal privacy, limiting the government's collection of personal information, and restricting the collection of genetic material. Unlike other biometric data, DNA is more than just an identifier. It is a comprehensive descriptor of all of a person's physical traits and their genealogy. Such valuable personal information must be tightly guarded and restricted to safe, necessary uses. Law enforcement collects and retains complete DNA samples, even though only a few sections are used to create CODIS profiles. There is no statute requiring the federal government to discard the full DNA sample. As genetics researchers discover new ways to use DNA, the potential for misuse by government increases and threatens individual privacy.

When a law enforcement entity collects a DNA sample, the government indefinitely retains that person's full genetic makeup. There is no statute requiring the federal government to discard the full DNA sample. As genetics researchers discover new ways to use DNA, the potential for misuse by government increases and threatens individual privacy. EPIC seeks prevent invasive uses of DNA cataloguing.

EPIC is particularly concerned with the continued expansion of DNA collection from increasingly larger populations; the CODIS database, which once contained only DNA profiles of sex offenders, has expanded to apply to other convicts and parolees. In 2008, the U.S. Attorney General promulgated a regulation that mandated the collection of a DNA sample from every person arrested under federal authority. 28 C.F.R. § 28.12(b). All law enforcement agencies in the country, federal, state and local, have access to CODIS. As CODIS expands, individual privacy rights are implicated, and not just for the individual whose DNA is added to the database; the ability to search for partial matches also implicates the privacy rights of family members whose DNA is a close enough match that the person is flagged in a CODIS DNA search.

Past EPIC "Friend of the Court" Briefs on DNA privacy and law enforcement databases

In 2004, EPIC submitted a 'friend of the court' brief in Maryland v. Raines, 857 A.2d 19 (Md. 2004). This case, a precursor to Maryland v. King, also dealt with a constitutional challenge to Maryland's DNA act. Charles Raines, an incarcerated felon, was forced to submit to a DNA test, which ultimately linked him to an unsolved sexual assault. EPIC argued that the DNA Collection Act violated both the Fourth Amendment and Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Maryland's state constitutional equivalent. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Act did not violate Raines's rights because he, as an incarcerated individual, 'enjoy[ed] less liberty than that of ordinary citizens.'

In 2005, EPIC filed a 'friend of the court' brief (PDF) in Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104 (5th Cir. 2006), where police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana conducted a house-to-house dragnet to collect DNA samples. EPIC successfully helped affirm that such practices are illegal.

In 2004, EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief (PDF) in United States v. Kincade, 379 F. 3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). This case addressed the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act's compulsory DNA collection from parolees. EPIC argued that the statute was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that an individual already convicted had a lowered expectation of privacy, allowing the DNA collection.

In 2009, EPIC filed a 'friend of the court' brief (PDF) in Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009). In that case, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a police search premised on erroneous information from an inaccurate law enforcement database. EPIC argued that the dramatic expansion of law enforcement databases riddled with inaccuracies and incomplete information puts individuals at risk and jeopardizes criminal investigations. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment only requires the suppression of evidence when doing so would meaningfully deter similar behavior in the future, and when police conduct was sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. Although the Court majority did not exclude the evidence, Justice Ginsburg, writing for four of the Justices in dissent, said that "negligent record-keeping errors by law enforcement threaten individual liberty, are susceptible to deterrence by the exclusionary rule, and cannot be remedied effectively through other means."

In 2005, EPIC submitted administrative comments to the TSA regarding the use of biometric data in access control systems used by workers at the nation's airports. EPIC cited a number of ways in which such biometric systems can be easily defeated, such as by using false identification at enrollment, physical alteration of a personal biometric, skewing sample collection by not cooperating, and hacking into or falsifying the database.

Legal Documents

United States Supreme Court

Maryland Court of Appeals


Relevant Precedent

  • Supreme Court and Appellate Court Cases
    • Maryland v. Raines, 857 A.2d 19 (Md. 2004)
    • People v. Buza, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 (Cal.Ct.App. 2011)
    • Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Cnty. of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1816 (2012)
    • Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006)
    • United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001)
    • United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc)
    • Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2012), pet'n for reh'g pending.
    • Mario W. v. Kaipio, 281 P.3d 476 (AZ S.Ct. 2012).
    • Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)

Relevant Law Review Articles, Reports, and Books

  • Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing (Oct. 2012).
  • Anita Allen, Privacy and Medicine, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2009).
  • Helen Nissenbaum, Personal Data: the Logic of Privacy, The Economist (2007).
  • Latanya Sweeney, Weaving Technology and Policy Together to Maintain Confidentiality, National Commission on Vital and Health Statistics (1998).
  • Emily C. Barbour, Cong. Research Serv., RL 41847, DNA Databanking: Selected Fourth Amendment Issues and Analysis (2011)
  • Mary McCarthy, Am I My Brother's Keeper?: Familial DNA Searches in the Twenty-First Century, 86 Notre Dame Law Review (2011)
  • Andrea Roth, Safety in Numbers? Deciding When DNA Alone is Enough to Convict, 85 New York University Law Review 1130 (2010)
  • Candice Roman-Santos, Concerns Associated with Expanding DNA Database, 2 Hastings College & Technology Law Journal 267 (2010)
  • Jessica Gabel, Probable Cause from Probable Bonds: A Genetic Tattle Tale Based on Familial DNA, 21 Hastings College of the Law 3 (2010)
  • The Perils of Suspicionless DNA Extraction of Arrestees Under California Proposition 69: Liability of the California Prosecutor for Fourth Amendment Violation? The Uncertainty Continues in 2010, 37 Western State University Law Review 183 (2010)
  • Michael Seringhaus, The Problem Child: Forensic DNA Databases, Familial Search, and A Call for Reform, Yale Law School Student Scholarship Repository, Student Prize Papers (2010).

News Reports

Print Media


Views: 300

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Education Beyond Borders to add comments!

Join Education Beyond Borders


Noble Kelly created this Ning Network.

Donate Now!

Translate this page:

Follow us on:


© 2022   Created by Noble Kelly.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service