Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. C.B.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 30, 2016No. A146277Published

1Dissent

POLLAK, Acting P. J.,

Dissenting.—Because the retention of an individual’s DNA sample is not authorized based on an adjudication that the person committed a misdemeanor, and because Proposition 47 requires that offenses redesignated from felonies to misdemeanors under its provisions be treated as misdemeanors ‘“for all purposes” except with respect to firearm restrictions, I believe that the minor (minor) is entitled to the expungement of his DNA sample from the state’s database.

‘“Proposition 47 enacted ‘ ‘“the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” ’ (the Act), effective November 5, 2014.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. People v. ParkCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  3. People v. Superior Court (Pearson)California Supreme Court · 2010
  4. People v. FeyrerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  5. People v. ToneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API