Legal Opinion
Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 20, 2014No. 10-15152PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
California law requires that all persons arrested for or charged with any felony or attempted felony submit DNA samples for inclusion in law enforcement databases. Cal.Penal Code § 296(a)(2), (4). Plaintiffs brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the law is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the certified class, which includes “[a]ll persons who are, or will be, compelled to submit to the search and seizure of their body tissue and DNA under California Penal Code § 296(a)(2)(C) solely by reason of the fact that they have been arrested for, or charged…
3Cases cited5 opinions
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Alliance for Wild Rockies v. CottrellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Maryland v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Bull v. City and County of San FranciscoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Haskell v. BrownDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
4Cited by22 opinions
- People v. BuzaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- Raynor v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- State v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016
- People v. ValdezColorado Court of Appeals · 2017
- People v. LancasterColorado Court of Appeals · 2015
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.