The facts were: In 2003, a man concealing his face and armed with a gun broke into a womans home in Salisbury, Maryland, then raped her. The police could not identify or apprehend the assailant, but they did obtain a sample of the perpetrators DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) from the victim.

In 2009, Alonzo King was arrested in Maryland and charged with first and second-degree assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. As part of the booking procedure for serious offenses, a DNA sample was taken from King by applying a cotton swab known as a buccal swab to the inside of his checks. His DNA was found to have matched the DNA taken from the Salisbury rape victim.

King was tried and convicted of the 2003 rape. King alleged that the DNA taken when he was booked in 2009 violated the Fourth Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure and therefore could not be used to convict him of the 2003 rape. The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed and set the rape conviction aside. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a review.

Issue: Did Marys collection of Kings DNA during the booking procedure in 2009 constitute an unreasonable search and seizure?

Ethics Questions:

Why did King want his DNA kept out of his criminal trial for the 2003 rape charge?

Should law enforcement and other courts rely on DNA evidence as much as they do?