Constitutional law - Supreme Court of Minnesota upholds warrantless DNA sample of individual convicted of misdemeanor - State v. Johnson.

• Author: Grant, Raymond
• Position: Randolph Johnson Jr.

Constitutional Law--Supreme Court of Minnesota Upholds Warrantless DNA Sample of Individual Convicted of Misdemeanor--State v. Johnson, 813 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012)

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protect an individual's privacy right from an unreasonable search or seizure. (1) However, courts have upheld the constitutionality of some searches when an individual's expectation of privacy is outweighed by a legitimate governmental interest. (2) In State v. Johnson, (3) the Supreme Court of Minnesota considered whether a Minnesota statute violated an individual's right to privacy by authorizing DNA collection from an individual charged with a felony offense but convicted of a misdemeanor arising from the same conduct. (4) The court held that the statute, as applied to the defendant in this case, did not violate the United States or Minnesota constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. (5)

In September 2008, Randolph Johnson Jr. was charged with felony domestic assault by strangulation. (6) Johnson was also charged with misdemeanor fifth-degree assault for actions arising out of the same incident. (7) Prior to trial, Johnson accepted the State's plea bargain and pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault, rather than the felony domestic assault charge. (8) When informed that he was required to submit a DNA sample in accordance with Minnesota's DNA sampling statute, Johnson signed the guilty plea on the condition that it could be withdrawn if the district court denied his motion to declare the DNA sampling statute unconstitutional. (9) Johnson argued that the DNA sampling statute violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, because requiring DNA samples from individuals convicted of misdemeanor offenses constitutes a warrantless and suspicionless seizure. (10)

At the sentencing hearing, the district court rejected Johnson's argument and held that the statute was constitutional, but stayed the order to submit a DNA sample pending appeal. (11) He was subsequently placed on probation after a stay of his ninety-day sentence. (12) Johnson's probation was subject to several conditions, including the requirement that he submit to random urinalysis testing. (13) On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that the Minnesota DNA sampling statute did not violate the search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment when applied to individuals convicted of a misdemeanor arising from the same set of circumstances as a charged felony. (14) Upon granting Johnson's petition for review, the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that, as a result of Johnson's significant reduction in his expectation of privacy, the State's interests in deterring recidivism and identifying offenders of past and future crimes significantly outweighed Johnson's privacy expectation; therefore, the statute was constitutional under the totality-of-the-circumstances test. (15)

The cornerstone analysis of the Fourth Amendment is the reasonableness of the government's intrusion into an individual's privacy, which is usually measured by compliance with the Warrant Clause and its requirement of probable cause. (16) However, the United States Supreme Court has relaxed the probable cause standard under certain conditions. (17) In United States v. Knights, the Court applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test to a Fourth Amendment challenge of a warrantless search pursuant to a felony probation condition. (18) Balancing the privacy interests of the defendant against the government's interest in the search, the Court held that under the foregoing test, the Fourth Amendment merely required reasonable suspicion to uphold the felony probation search. (19) Expanding upon this holding, the United States Supreme Court again addressed the issue of a warrantless search as a condition of parole in Samson v. California (20) Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the Court held that, despite significant opposition, parolees have severely limited expectations of privacy; therefore, they can be subject to a suspicionless search as a condition of their parole. (21)

Minnesota courts have adopted many of the principles applied in the United States Supreme Court decisions involving warrantless searches resulting from a parole or probation condition, including the totality-of-the-circumstances test. (22) Recognizing that warrantless residential searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable, Minnesota courts have required that the government's interest in intruding into the individual's right of privacy must outweigh the individual's expectation of privacy to uphold a warrantless search. (23) Additionally, the courts have recognized that an individual on probation has a reduced expectation of privacy as a result of probationary status. (24) Originally, Minnesota courts followed the holding in Knights, that reasonable suspicion was required to uphold a warrantless search as a condition of a probation agreement. (25) However, like the Supreme Court in Samson, the standard was expanded to support suspicionless searches if the condition was included in a felony probation agreement. (26)

While the United States Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the constitutionality of suspicionless DNA sampling through the authorization of state and federal DNA indexing laws, the Court has stipulated that the collection of a DNA sample constitutes a search and is subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. (27) A majority of federal and state courts have adopted the totality-of-the-circumstances test in analyzing suspicionless DNA sampling and have routinely held such a search constitutional when it is a condition of felony probation or parole. (28) The Supreme Court of Minnesota has also applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test to suspicionless DNA sampling, concluding that the State's DNA sampling statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment when applied to a convicted felon. (29) Regarding the individual's expectation of privacy, the court recognized the minimal physical intrusion of a DNA buccal swab and affirmed the lower expectation of privacy for convicted felons. (30) Additionally, the court held that the State had substantial interests in DNA sampling relating to the conditions of probation or parole and to helping solve past and future crimes. (31) However, Minnesota courts have not left DNA sampling unchecked, as the court of appeals recently ruled that a DNA sample from an arrestee was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (32)

In State v. Johnson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test to affirm the constitutionality of the DNA sample. (33) The court first examined the nature of the physical intrusion on Johnson's bodily integrity and his reasonable expectation of privacy in his identity. (34) After analyzing the DNA collection process, the court held that the physical intrusion into Johnson's bodily integrity was minimal, especially when compared to the other provisions of his probation, such as the random urinalysis. (35) Moreover, the court recognized the hierarchy of expectations of privacy ranging from incarcerated prisoners to probationers and held that Johnson's status as a probationer significantly reduced his expectation of privacy in his identity. (36)

Transitioning to the second prong of the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the court looked at the State's interest in DNA collection. (37) Applying past precedent, the court found that the State had substantial interests in DNA collection, including: exonerating the innocent, deterring recidivism, identifying offenders of past and future crimes, and bringing closure for victims of unsolved crimes. (38) These interests apply equally whether the offender is a convicted felon or, like Johnson, is convicted of a misdemeanor arising out of the same set of circumstances as a felony charge. (39) Balancing these substantial state interests against Johnson's significantly reduced expectation of privacy in his identity, the court held that the Minnesota DNA sampling statute, as applied to the specific facts of this case, did not violate the Constitution's search and seizure provision...