Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)

Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?

facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.

Rule of Law:What rule please mention the statue, case, legal principle mentioned in the images, did the court apply

* include the actual statutes, constitutional amendments or cases the Court applies the facts USE PRECEDENT FROM THE OTHER ITALIZES CASES

Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?

*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law

Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?

Maryland v. King

In 2003 a man concealing his face and armed with a gun broke into a woman's home in Salisbury, Maryland. He raped her. The police were unable to identify or apprehend the assailant based on any detailed description or other evidence they then had, but they did obtain from the victim a sample of the perpetrator's DNA. Six years later Alonzo King was arrested and charged with first and second degree assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. As a routine part of the booking process for serious offenses, his DNZ sample was taken by applying a cotton swab to the inside of his cheeks, as required by the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Act). His DNA was found to match the DNA taken from the Salisbury rape victim and he was tried and convicted for rape. King appealed, arguing that the Maryland DNA Collection Act violated the Fourth Amendment.

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The advent of DNA technology is one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era. The full potential for use of genetic markers in medicine and science is still being explored, but the utility of DNA identification in the criminal justice system is already undisputed. Since the first use of forensic DNA analysis to catch a rapist and murderer in England in 1986, law enforcement, the defense bar, and the courts have acknowledged DNA testing's "unparalleled ability both to exon- crate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty. It has the potential to significantly improve both the criminal justice system and police inves- tigative practices." The Maryland DNA Collection Act authorizes Maryland law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from "an individual who is charged with . . . a crime of violence or an attempt to com- mit a crime of violence; or . . . burglary or an attempt to commit burglary." Maryland law defines a crime of violence to include murder, rape, first-degree assault, kidnapping, arson, sex- ual assault, and a variety of other serious crimes. Once taken, a DNA sample may not be processed or placed in a database before the individual is arraigned (unless the individual consents). It is at this point that a judicial officer ensures that there is probable cause to detain the arrestee on a qual- ifying serious offense. If "all qualifying criminal charges are determined to be unsupported by probable cause . .. the DNA sample shall be immediately destroyed." DNA samples are also destroyed if "a criminal action begun against the individual . . . . . does not result in a conviction," "the conviction is finally reversed or vacated andno new trial is permitted,\" or \"the individual is granted an unconditional pardon.\" i t * Respondent's DNA was collected in this case using a common procedure known as a \"buccal swab.\" \"Buccal cell collection involves wiping a small piece of lter paper or a cotton swab similar to a Q-tip against the inside check of an individu- al's mouth to collect some skin cells.\" The proce- dure is quick and painless. The swab touches inside an arrestee's mouth, but it requires no \"sur- gical intrusio[n] beneath the skin,\" and it poses no \"threa[t] to the health or safety\" of arrestees. ' i * Although the DNA swab procedure used here presents a question the Court has not yet addressed, the framework for deciding the issue is well estab- lished. The Fourth Amendment, binding on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that \"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unrea- sonable searches and seizures, shall not be vio- lated.\" It can be agreed that using a buccal swab on the inner tissues ofa person's check in order to obtain DNA samples is a search. Virtually any \"intrusio[n] into the human body\" will work an invasion of \"'cherished personal security' that is subject to constitutional scrutiny.\" The Court has applied the Fourth Amendment to police efforts to draw blood, scraping an arrestee's ngernails to obtain trace evidence, and even to \"a breathalyzer test, which generally requires the production of alveolar or 'deep lung' breath for chemical analysis." A buccal swab is a far more gentle process than a venipuncture to draw blood. It involves but a light touch on the inside of the cheek; and although it can be deemed a search within the body of the arrestee, it requires no \"surgical intrusions beneath the skin.\" The fact that an intrusion is negligible is of central relevance to determining reasonable- ness, although it is still a search as the law denes that term. t t i The legitimate government interest served by the Maryland DNA Collection Act is one that is well established: the need for law enforcement ofcers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify the persons and possessions they must take into custody. It is beyond dispute that \"probable cause provides legal justication for arresting a person suspected of crime, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest Also uncontested is the \"right on the part of the Government, always rec- ognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested.\" \"The validity of the search of a person incident to a lawful arrest has been regarded as set- tled from its first enunciation, and has remained virtually unchallenged.\" Even in that context, the Court has been clear that individual suspicion is not necessary, because \"[t]he constitutionality of a search incident to an arrest does not depend on whether there is any indication that the person arrested possesses weapons or evidence. The fact of a lawful arrest, standing alone, authorizes a search.\" The \"routine administrative procedure[s] at a police station house incident to booking and jailing the suspect\" derive from different origins and have different constitutional justications than, say, the search of a place, for the search of a place not inci- dent to an arrest depends on the \"fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.\" The interests are fur- ther di'erent when an individual is formally pro- cessed into police custody. Then \"the law is in the act of subjecting the body of the accused to its physical dominion.\" When probable cause exists to remove an individual from the normal channels of society and hold him in legal custody, DNA identication plays a critical role in serving those interests. First, \"[i]n every criminai case, it is known and must be known who has been arrested and who is being tried. An individual's identity is more than just his name or Social Security number, and the government's interest in identication goes beyond ensuring that the proper name is typed on the indictment. Identity has never been considered limited to the name on the arrestee's birth certi- cate. . . . A suspect's criminal history is a critical part of his identity that officers should know when pro- cessing him for detention. It is a common occur- rence that "[people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals. Hours after the Oklahoma City bomb- ing, Timothy Mcveigh was stopped by a statetrooper who noticed he was driving without a license plate. Police stopped serial killer Joel Rifkin for the same reason. One of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93." Police already seek this cru- cial identifying information. They use routine and accepted means as varied as comparing the sus- pect's booking photograph to sketch artists' depic- tions of persons of interest, showing his mugshot to potential witnesses, and of course making a computerized comparison of the arrestee's finger- prints against electronic databases of known crim- inals and unsolved crimes. In this respect the only difference between DNA analysis and the accepted use of fingerprint databases is the unparalleled accuracy DNA provides. The task of identification necessarily entails searching public and police records based on the identifying information provided by the arrestee to see what is already known about him. The DNA collected from arrestees is an irrefutable identifi- cation of the person from whom it was taken. Like a fingerprint, the 13 CODIS loci are not them- selves evidence of any particular crime, in the way that a drug test can by itself be evidence of illegal narcotics use. A DNA profile is useful to the police because it gives them a form of identi- fication to search the records already in their valid possession. In this respect the use of DNA for identification is no different than matching an arrestee's face to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect; or matching tattoos to known gang symbols to reveal a criminal affiliation; or matching the arrestee's fingerprints to those recovered from a crime scene. DNA is another metric of identification used to connect the arrestee with his or her public persona, as reflected in records of his or her actions that are available to the police. Those records may be linked to the arrestee by a variety of relevant forms of identifi- cation, including name, alias, date and time of previous convictions and the name then used,The task of identification necessarily entails searching public and police records based on the identifying information provided by the arrested to see what is already known about him. The DNA collected from arrestees is an irrefutable identifi- cation of the person from whom it was taken. Like a fingerprint, the 13 CODIS loci are not them- selves evidence of any particular crime, in the way that a drug test can by itself be evidence of illegal narcotics use. A DNA profile is useful to the police because it gives them a form of identi- fication to search the records already in their valid possession. In this respect the use of DNA for identification is no different than matching an arrestce's face to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect, or matching tattoos to known gang symbols to reveal a criminal affiliation; or matching the arrestee's fingerprints to those recovered from a crime scene. DNA is another metric of identification used to connect the arrestce with his or her public persona, as reflected in records of his or her actions that are available to the police. Those records may be linked to the arrestce by a variety of relevant forms of identifi- cation, including name, alias, date and time of previous convictions and the name then used, photograph, Social Security number, or CODIS profile. These data, found in official records, are checked as a routine matter to produce a more com- prehensive record of the suspect's complete iden- tity. Finding occurrences of the arrested's CODIS profile in outstanding cases is consistent with this common practice. It uses a different form ofidentification than a name or fingerprint, but its function is the same. Second, law enforcement officers bear a respons sibility for ensuring that the custody of an arrested does not create inordinate "risks for facility staff, for the existing detainee population, and for a new detainee." DNA identification can provide untainted information to those charged with detaining suspects and detaining the property of any felon. For these purposes officers must know the type of person whom they are detaining, and DNA allows them to make critical choices about how to proceed. "Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a sus- pect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Identity may prove particularly important in [certain cases, such as] where the police are investigating what appears to be a domestic assault. Officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim." Recognizing that a name alone cannot address this interest in identity, the Court has approved, for example, "a visual inspection for certain tattoos and other signs of gang affiliation as part of the intake process," because "[the identification and isolation of gang members before they are admit- ted protects everyone." Third, looking forward to future stages of crim- inal prosecution, "the Government has a substan tial interest in ensuring that persons accused of crimes are available for trials." A person who is arrested for one offense but knows that he has yet to answer for some past crime may be more inclined to flee the instant charges, lest continued contact with the criminal justice system expose one or more other serious offenses. For example, a defendant itiedThird, looking forward to future stages of crim- inal prosecution, "the Government has a substan tial interest in ensuring that persons accused of crimes are available for trials." A person who is arrested for one offense but knows that he has yet to answer for some past crime may be more inclined to flee the instant charges, lest continued contact with the criminal justice system expose one or more other serious offenses. For example, a defendant who had committed a prior sexual assault might be inclined to flee on a burglary charge, knowing that in every State a DNA sample would be taken from him after his conviction on the burglary charge that would tie him to the more serious charge of rape. In addition to subverting the administration of justice with respect to the crime of arrest, this ties back to the interest insafety; for a detainee who absconds from custody presents a risk to law enforcement officers, other detainees, victims of previous crimes, witnesses, and society at large. Fourth, an arrestee's past conduct is essential to an assessment of the danger he poses to the public, and this will inform a court's determination whether the individual should be released on bail. "The government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling." DNA identification of a suspect in a violent crime provides critical information to the police and judicial officials in making a determination of the arrestee's future dangerousness. This inquiry always has entailed some scrutiny beyond the name on the defendant's driver's license. For example, Maryland law requires a judge to take into account not only "the nature and circum- stances of the offense charged" but also "the defendant's family ties, employment status and history, financial resources, reputation, character and mental condition, length of residence in the community." Knowing that the defendant is wanted for a previous violent crime based on DNA identification is especially probative of the court's consideration of "the danger of the defen- dant to the alleged victim, another person, or the community." This interest is not speculative. In considering laws to require collecting DNA from arrestees, government agencies around the Nation found evi- dence of numerous cases in which felony arrestees would have been identified as violent through DNA identification matching them to previous crimes but who later committed additional crimes because such identification was not used to detain them.extension of methods of identification long used in dealing with persons under arrest." In the balance of reasonableness required by the Fourth Amend- ment, therefore, the Court must give great weight both to the significant government interest at stake in the identification of arrestees and to the unmatched potential of DNA identification to serve that interest By comparison to this substantial government interest and the unique effectiveness of DNA iden- tification, the intrusion of a check swab to obtain a DNA sample is a minimal one. Truc, a significant government interest does not alone suffice to jus- tify a search. The government interest must out- weigh the degree to which the search invades an individual's legitimate expectations of privacy. In considering those expectations in this case, how- ever, the necessary predicate of a valid arrest for a serious offense is fundamental. "Although the underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is always that searches and seizures be reasonable. what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place." The expectations of privacy of an individual taken into police custody "necessarily [are] of a diminished scope." "[Bjoth the person and the property in his immediate possession may be searched at the station house." A search of the detaince's person when he is booked into custody may "involve a relatively extensive exploration,"" including "requiring] at least some detainees to lift their genitals or cough in a squatting position." In light of the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause respondent's expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his checks. By contrast, that same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody.In light of the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause respondent's expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks. By contrast, that same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody. Upon these considerations the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing acheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like finger- printing and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Mary- land is reversed. It is so ordered