October Term 2012 · Docket 12-207
Does the Fourth Amendment allow police to collect DNA from arrestees without a warrant?
Maryland seeks to uphold its law requiring DNA collection from arrestees. King argues this practice violates his constitutional rights.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Maryland argues arrestees are in a unique category. They are on the gateway into the criminal justice system. Their privacy expectations are substantially reduced.
King argues the search was warrantless and suspicionless. He claims this practice is presumptively unconstitutional. He argues the state cites no valid exception.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 33-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Maryland wants to keep its law requiring DNA collection from arrestees. It claims this practice helps solve crimes. King wants the court to strike down the law. He argues it violates his Fourth Amendment rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 13-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-11
What each side wants
Maryland wants to keep its DNA collection law for arrestees.
King wants the court to strike down the DNA collection law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 13-27
What each side says
Maryland argues arrestees have reduced privacy expectations.
King argues warrantless suspicionless searches are unconstitutional.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 13-27
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked how long the DNA procedure takes.
Justice Kagan asked if the state can search homes for unrelated crimes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 33-41
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of police power during arrest. It determines whether DNA collection is a standard booking procedure. It affects the privacy rights of all arrestees nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 13-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 33-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 13-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.