Mario W. v. Hon. kaipio/state
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HURWITZ, Vice Chief Justice.
¶ 1 Arizona law requires juveniles charged with certain offenses and summoned to appear at an advisory hearing to submit to the investigating law enforcement agency “a sufficient sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] testing and extraction.” A.R.S. § 8-238(A). The penalty for failure to comply is revocation of release pending adjudication. § 8-238(B). In this case we consider whether the statutory scheme violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
I
¶ 2 Seven juveniles…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Dunaway v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. ChadwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. DionisioSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Maryland v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- People v. BuzaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. MedinaSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- State v. AdairCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- State of Arizona v. Ian MitchamArizona Supreme Court · 2024
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.