Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 25, 2012No. A09-0247Published

1DissentMeyer, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The collection of the biological specimen for DNA constitutes an intrusion upon personal security and dignity. The search of the DNA implicates strong privacy interests apart from those intruded upon by the collection of the specimen. Given the potential for exposure of exceptionally private information contained in the DNA, I find these full-scale personal DNA searches highly intrusive. The State claims that the collection and retention of biological specimens from misdemeanants for DNA serves the same interests as the collection and retention of specimens from felony…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

38 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