Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Brown
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 4, 2011No. 09-15236PublishedCited by 191 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether California state prison inmates constitutionally may be required to provide blood samples for DNA identification under California’s DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Act of 1998, as amended, Cal. Pen. Code § 295 et seq. (the “Act” or the “California DNA Act”). Pro se plaintiff George Hamilton, a California state prison inmate, alleges that prison officials forcibly extracted a blood sample for DNA identification without his consent. He contends that this violated his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Whitley v. AlbersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by191 opinions
- Wilhelm v. RotmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Duane Belanus v. Phil ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Madero Pouncil v. James TiltonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Ruiz v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Andre Dennison v. Charles RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
186 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.