DNA Database Trawls and the Definition of a Search in Boroian v. Mueller

10 Pages Posted: 8 Aug 2011 Last revised: 23 Aug 2011

See all articles by David H. Kaye

David H. Kaye

PSU - Penn State Law (University Park); ASU - College of Law & School of Life Sciences

Date Written: August 4, 2011

Abstract

As a general matter, once the government acquires information from a permissible search or seizure, it can use this information in later criminal investigations. Courts have applied this simple rule to uphold the indefinite reuse of DNA samples acquired from convicted offenders. This essay describes the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ reliance on the rule in rejecting a convicted offender’s claim that his DNA sample and profile had to be removed from the federal DNA databank after he completed his sentence. Acknowledging that the rule permitting reuse should not be applied mechanically, I argue that the rule's application to DNA databases is correct because merely retrawling a database for matches to a crime-scene sample does not implicate any cognizable Fourth Amendment interest.

Keywords: search and seizure, fourth amendment, DNA database, reuse, trawling

Suggested Citation

Kaye, David H., DNA Database Trawls and the Definition of a Search in Boroian v. Mueller (August 4, 2011). Virginia Law Review, Vol. 97, pp. 41-49, 2011, The Pennsylvania State University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-2011, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1906512

David H. Kaye (Contact Author)

PSU - Penn State Law (University Park)

Lewis Katz Building
University Park, PA 16802
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.personal.psu.edu/dhk3/index.htm

ASU - College of Law & School of Life Sciences ( email )

111 E Taylor St.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.personal.psu.edu/dhk3/index.htm

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
98
Abstract Views
1,462
Rank
485,733
PlumX Metrics