Biometric Data In Criminal Prosecutions
What Is Biometric Data in Criminal Law?
Biometric data refers to unique physical or behavioral characteristics used for identification.
Common examples: fingerprints, DNA, facial recognition, voice, gait, iris scans.
Used for: identification, linking suspects to crime scenes, and verifying identities.
Key Case Studies on Biometric Data in Criminal Prosecutions
1. Maryland v. King (2013)
Issue: Whether collecting DNA from arrestees without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
Facts: King was arrested for assault; Maryland law allowed DNA swabbing on arrestees charged with serious crimes.
Holding: Supreme Court upheld DNA collection, ruling it is a legitimate police booking procedure, comparable to fingerprinting.
Significance: DNA swabbing is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment during booking, expanding biometric data use.
2. Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Issue: Whether accessing historical cell phone location data without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
Facts: Law enforcement used phone tower records to track Carpenter’s movements over 127 days.
Holding: Court ruled accessing long-term location data is a search requiring a warrant.
Significance: Although not traditional biometric data, this case sets privacy limits on digital data collection, influencing biometric data privacy debates.
3. State v. Loomis (2016) (Wisconsin Supreme Court)
Issue: Use of a computer risk assessment tool including biometric and personal data in sentencing.
Facts: The defendant argued that algorithmic sentencing based on data including biometrics violated due process.
Holding: Court upheld the tool but emphasized transparency and defendant’s right to challenge results.
Significance: Raises questions about biometric data in predictive algorithms affecting criminal justice.
4. People v. Buza (California, 2018)
Issue: Use of facial recognition technology by police without warrants.
Facts: Defendant challenged police use of facial recognition in identifying suspects from public photos.
Holding: California Supreme Court ruled facial recognition use in public spaces did not violate privacy rights.
Significance: Sets precedent allowing facial recognition use without warrants in public, but with ongoing debates.
5. United States v. Kincade (2009)
Issue: Whether storing DNA profiles in a federal database after release violates privacy or due process.
Facts: Kincade’s DNA profile was kept in the database after release on supervised release.
Holding: Court ruled the collection and storage are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and do not violate due process.
Significance: Supports broad DNA databasing practices for convicted offenders.
6. Illinois v. Caballes (2005)
Issue: Use of a drug-sniffing dog during a lawful traffic stop.
Facts: Police used a dog to detect drugs without a warrant or probable cause.
Holding: Court ruled no violation of Fourth Amendment because dog sniff did not expose non-contraband items.
Significance: Though not biometric data, the case relates to limits on searches and evidence collection.
Summary Table
| Case | Biometric/Data Type | Legal Issue | Court Holding | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland v. King (2013) | DNA | Warrantless DNA swabbing at arrest | Upheld as reasonable booking procedure | DNA collection permitted at arrest booking |
| Carpenter v. US (2018) | Cell phone location data | Warrant requirement for long-term data | Warrant required | Limits on digital data tracking |
| State v. Loomis (2016) | Algorithmic risk assessment | Due process rights with data-driven sentencing | Upheld with transparency safeguards | Challenges in biometric data in sentencing |
| People v. Buza (2018) | Facial recognition | Warrantless use in public | Allowed | Facial recognition permitted in public |
| US v. Kincade (2009) | DNA database | Retention of DNA after release | Upheld retention | Supports broad DNA databasing |
| Illinois v. Caballes (2005) | Drug-sniffing dog (non-biometric but relevant) | Search limits without warrant | No violation if lawful stop | Defines limits on evidence search |
Key Takeaways
Courts generally allow DNA collection at arrest and databasing post-conviction.
Facial recognition use in public is often permitted, but privacy concerns persist.
Digital and biometric data require careful balancing of privacy rights and law enforcement needs.
Emerging challenges exist with algorithmic use of biometric data in sentencing and investigations.
The Fourth Amendment governs many biometric data uses, but standards vary by context.
RELATED Blog
0 comments