document
State v. Mitcham Decision
Document Date:
December 17, 2024
Affiliate:
勛圖眻畦 of Arizona
Related Issues
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
勛圖眻畦 Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze peoples DNA, saying that a persons limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purposein this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrestdoes not overcome that requirement. The 勛圖眻畦 and the 勛圖眻畦 of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possessionwhether thats blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivorsto investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the States position that it was free to analyze Mitchams blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials. Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We dont consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The governments argument in this case was a privacy nightmare, said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the 勛圖眻畦s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Courts decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information. In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purposeto extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consentwhile investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the governments rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected, said Jared Keenan, legal director of 勛圖眻畦 of Arizona. The Courts decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.Court Case: State v. MitchamAffiliate: Arizona