Green v. Berge, 354 F. 3d 675 (7th Cir. 01-4080, 1/9/04)
The Wisconsin law, § 165.76 et seq., was passed in 1993. In its original form, only prisoners convicted of certain offenses were required to give DNA samples for analysis. In 1999, the law was amended to require that all persons convicted of felonies in Wisconsin (and those who were in prison at the time) provide DNA samples for analysis and storage in the state’s data bank….
Although the United States Supreme Court has yet to address the validity of DNA collection statutes under the Fourth Amendment, as we just noted, state and federal courts that have are almost unanimous in holding that these statutes do not violate the Fourth Amendment….
Wisconsin’s DNA collection statute is, we think, narrowly drawn, and it serves an important state interest. Those inmates subject to testing because they are in custody, are already “seized,” and given that DNA is the most reliable evidence of identification—stronger even than fingerprints or photographs—we see no Fourth Amendment impediments to collecting DNA samples from them pursuant to the Wisconsin law. The Wisconsin law withstands constitutional attack under the firmly entrenched “special needs” doctrine.
The court quotes with approval from an earlier district court opinion, Shelton v. Gudmanson, 934 F. Supp. 1048 (W.D. Wis 1996), which likens “special needs searches” to administrative searches, “in which the warrant and probable cause showing are replaced by the requirement of showing a neutral plan for execution, a compelling governmental need, the absence of less restrictive alternatives and reduced privacy rights…. Although the state’s DNA testing of inmates is ultimately for a law enforcement goal, it seems to fit within the special needs analysis the Court has developed for drug testing and searches of probationers’ homes, since it is not undertaken for the investigation of a specific crime.”
DNA collection ordered at sentencing is treated, here.)