Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Last week the California Supreme Court gave its approval to arrest warrants that identify a suspect by DNA profile alone. Federal and state laws allow so-called 'John Doe' warrants, which identify a suspect by means other than a name. The question before the Court was whether a DNA profile satisfies the 'particularity' requirement, meaning that it identifies a suspect with sufficient clarity. The Court ruled that the unique quality of each person's DNA serves as an adequately precise descriptor of a suspect and thus is valid for arrest warrants.

The case involved Paul Robinson, who in 2000 was arrested in Sacramento County for a sexual assault that took place in 1994. The Sacramento D.A.'s office had issued an arrest warrant for the case four days before the end of the six-year statute of limitations period. Instead of the suspect's name, the warrant listed his DNA profile, which came from evidence at the crime scene. A few weeks later, an amended arrest warrant was issued, this time with the suspect's name, which had been obtained when the crime scene DNA evidence matched a profile in the state's DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base. Robinson was arrested, subsequently found guilty in Sacramento Superior Court and sentenced to state prison.

Robinson appealed his conviction on three grounds: 1. The original 'John Doe' arrest warrant did not constitute a valid commencement of prosecution within the statute of limitations period; 2. His DNA profile did not satisfy the 'particularity' requirement of an arrest warrant; 3. The police should not have been able to use his DNA profile in their investigation since it was obtained from an invalid application of the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act while he was incarcerated for another offence in 1999.

The Supreme Court's majority disagreed with Robinson on all three issues. First, it affirmed that a 'John Doe' arrest warrant counts as the beginning of a prosecution and thus falls within the statute of limitations. Second, use of a DNA profile to identify a suspect on an arrest warrant is valid. The Court stated that, "For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that the arrest warrant in question, which described the defendant by his 13-loci DNA profile and included an explanation that the profile had a random match probability such that there was essentially no chance of its being duplicated in the human population except in the case of genetically identical sibling, complied with the mandate of our federal Constitution that the person seized be described with particularity." Finally, the Court said that though the blood draw that placed Robinson's information in the DNA data base violated provisions of the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act of 1998, law enforcement personnel had made good faith attempts to comply with the law. The DNA evidence, therefore, need not be excluded.

The Court's decision does not mean that there is agreement about this issue. The two justices who dissented in the Robinson case argued that allowing 'John Doe' arrest warrants based on DNA evidence merely allows law enforcement to improperly extend the statute of limitations on a case. We'll have to watch the U.S. Supreme Court to see if it takes up this case or others like it.

If you have questions about arrest warrants, call the Law Office of Nancy King at 916-442-1200 for a free and confidential consultation.

The People v. Paul Eugene Robinson, Supreme Court of California, January 25, 2010

The United States Department of Justice on October 19 issued new guidelines related to medical marijuana. The federal government will no longer prosecute distributors of medical marijuana in the 14 states, including California, that allow marijuana to be sold for medicinal purposes, as long as those operations are in compliance with relevant state laws. This represents a substantive change from the policies of the Bush administration, which initiated a vigorous federal effort to prosecute medical marijuana distributors

The memorandum detailing the new policy makes it clear that this change does not mean that the federal government gives up its authority to regulate medical marijuana distribution. However, the Justice Department has decided to focus its resources on going after illegal drug traffickers and manufacturers. Moreover, the memorandum states that federal authorities will continue to prosecute medical marijuana facilities that unlawfully possess firearms, sell to minors, engage in violence, sell amounts of marijuana inconsistent with medical use, sell other illegal drugs, engage in money laundering, or have ties to organized crime.

This new policy also does nothing to change California's laws regarding possession and use of marijuana for non-medicinal uses. Possession for personal use is a misdemeanor, with a fine of $100 for less than an ounce. Possession of more than an ounce can bring fines of $500, up to 6 months in county jail, and probation. Possession for sale carries severe penalties, including the possibility of state prison.

The danger for marijuana users, of course, is that they are arrested with marijuana that they claim is strictly for personal use but that the police claim is for sale. In all instances involving arrest for marijuana, legal representation is essential. Even the relatively mild penalties for possession for personal use result in a criminal record, which can have serious consequences when applying for a job.

In an upcoming post, we'll go into more detail on California's marijuana laws. In the meantime, see our September 3 post on California's drug court system.

Call the Law Office of Nancy King if you have questions about these topics.

Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

California Health and Safety Code Section 11357