It is common knowledge that if you are convicted of a serious crime a DNA sample will be taken and placed in the National DNA database for use by law enforcement. What is less known is that it is common police practice in many states to take a DNA sample from people who have been arrested, but not yet convicted of a crime.

Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a case, which came about as the result of a Maryland statute, challenging the practice of collecting DNA samples from arrestees. The Maryland statute that popularized the practice arose after the brutal rape and murder of Katie Sepich in 2003. Despite DNA evidence, it took over 3 years to identify her killer.

Proponents of the law point to the Katie Sepich case, noting that it is an important law enforcement tool to seeing justice done.

"Behind every number is a human story, a case in which a DNA sample collected from a felony arrestee played a crucial role in solving a violent crime," says a brief submitted by all 49 other states backing Maryland's law.

However, civil liberty advocates and opponents of the practice note that collecting DNA samples before conviction increases the possibility that errors could be committed. In addition, the DNA is inherently subject to contamination, misinterpretation, mislabeling, and fraud.

Courts generally recognize that someone who has been arrested has more of a right to privacy than someone who has been convicted. Therefore, opponents say, a DNA sample taken from an arrestee is a bodily intrusion requiring a search warrant. However, proponents argue that there is nothing in the DNA markers that discloses anything private.

It will be up to the court to balance the needs of law enforcement with an individual’s right to privacy. It is worth noting the increased trend in personal information available to law enforcement agencies, with a recent addition of an FBI tattoo database.

With over 12 million arrests in the United States each year, the Supreme Court’s ruling will surely have an impact on criminal justice and law enforcement practices.

If you have been charged with a crime or are under investigation for criminal activity, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible. Contact San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney at (619) 239 2186 to set up an initial consultation.

New gun crime -related proposals that are being put forth by Democratic lawmakers would impose a bullet tax on Californians, and would use those funds to increase police enforcement in crime-ridden areas in the state. The money would also be used to fund mental health programs.

One bill has been proposed by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento. His bill would impose a $.05 tax per bullet that is sold. The funds generated through this legislation would fund a program that currently screens children for mental illnesses.

Another bill has been proposed by Rob Bonta of Oakland, and would increase law enforcement presence in cities that have high rates of violent crimes. Yet another bill that is also targeted at reducing gun violence would require that ammunition dealers obtain licenses, and report all sales of weapons.

With the concern over gun violence, especially after several school shootings, and debate over unfettered access to weaponry, it's no surprise that these kinds of bills have been proposed in California. In fact, California lawmakers have been proposing a number of bills to tackle gun violence.

At least one bill would increase penalties for gun crimes, including the illegal purchase sale, possession of firearms. Other proposals have included a mandatory state parole for people who are convicted, increased funding for a database of convicts, and safe storage laws for those homes occupied by anyone who is prohibited from possessing a weapon. Other proposed laws would eliminate a provision that allows a person who purchased assault weapons before the ban, to retain these.

California already has some of the strongest gun laws in the in the country, and in fact, the state was the first in the United States to ban assault weapons back in 1989. Therefore, at least some of these proposed pieces of legislation seem like overreactions to San Diego criminal defense attorneys.

In December of last year in a San Diego courtroom, a defendant attacked his defense attorney, stabbing him in the face with a makeshift knife. In recent days, two lawyers have been shot, most likely, as a direct result of their occupations. One took place in Texas as a prosecutor walked across the courthouse parking lot on his way to work. The attorney, Mark Hasse, had told friends that he had feared for his life in recent days and was carrying a gun due to the threats (CBS News). Unfortunately his precautions did not protect him adequately and Hasse was killed. In Phoenix, a mediation session went horribly awry as an angered participant shot and killed two people, injured a third and then took his own life after fleeing the scene. One of the targets of the shooting was Phoenix Attorney Mark Hummels who died days after being shot. Whether or not Hummels had been threatened by the gunman is unknown but, like many lawyers, he had probably been threatened before.   

According to KPHO news in Phoenix, the Arizona Bar is planning a survey to determine how many Arizona lawyers have been threatened in the course of their profession. A similar survey in Nevada revealed that 40% of surveyed attorneys report being threatened. There is no reason that these numbers will be any lower in Texas, California or Arizona. In fact, many attorneys could probably tell chilling anecdotes about threats they have received especially if they work in family or criminal law. Someone who believes they were not adequately protected in a drug case, for instance, may seek revenge. And obviously prosecutors may be threatened if their efforts contributed to incarceration. However, no lawyer is completely immune to threats no matter their area of practice. Hummels was shot in Phoenix during a mediation involving an office furniture contract dispute.

Certainly many people who make threats against lawyers do not have the intention of carrying through with their cruel promises. Emotions are fragile, futures tenuous, and frustration is real. These feelings pass for most people. But when an attorney makes contact with, perhaps, thousands of upset individuals over the course of their career, there is reason to believe that at least one of them will eventually act on their anger and do something irrevocable. Can any specific action be taken to make attorneys safer? Or is fearing for one's life just part of the job description? Perhaps all courts, courthouses, law firms and lawyers need to reconsider their safety precautions.