Legal Opinion
Cannon v. South Carolina Department of Probation Parole & Pardon Services
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided January 29, 2007No. 26256PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Acting Chief Justice MOORE:
Petitioner instituted a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the South Carolina Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Identification Record Database Act 1 (the Act) required him, as a condition of his parole, to submit a DNA sample to the state’s database. The trial court held the Act applied to petitioner and required him' to submit a sample. The court further held the Act did not violate the ex post facto clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Cannon v. .S.C. Dep’t of Prob., Parole and Pardon Servs., 361 S.C. 425, 604 S.E.2d 709 (Ct.App.2004). We reverse.
ISSUE
Did…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Whiteside v. Cherokee County School District No. OneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Hitachi Data Systems Corp. v. LeathermanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- Vernon v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1964
- Burns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
- Denene, Inc. v. City of CharlestonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re DNA Ex Post Facto IssuesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
- Sanders v. S.C. Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
- Shepard v. HoustonNebraska Supreme Court · 2014
- Eubanks v. South Carolina Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
- Smith v. Barnwell CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009