U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 136— VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IX— STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT › Part Part A— DNA Identification

42 U.S.C. § 14133

Transferred

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2006–2014 · leading case: United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 14133 (b)(1). 2 Conversely, the Act proscribes unauthorized disclosures, imposing penalties of up to one year in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000.”
Elizabeth Haskell v. Edmund Brown, Jr., 669 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “See 42 U.S.C. § 14133 (c), 14135e(c). An arrestee who is not ultimately convicted may ask either the California Department of Justice or the trial court to order the sample destroyed and the DNA profile expunged.”
United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 14135e(c), and limits access to DNA materials, 42 U.S.C. § 14133 (b)(1)(A)-(C). There are also provisions for the expungement of the DNA information if the defendant is acquitted or *1221 the felony charges are dismissed.”
Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “42 U.S.C. § 14133 (c). To facilitate the efficacy of the CODIS, the DNA Act directs the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to collect “a tissue, fluid, or other bodily sample .”
Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris, 745 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 14133 (c), 14135e(c). An arrestee who is not ultimately convicted may ask the trial court to order the sample destroyed and the DNA profile expunged.”
United States v. George C. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 14133 (c). Against this backdrop, we consider Hook’s challenge to the probation officer’s directive to submit to DNA collection.”
United States v. Pool, 645 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “42 U.S.C. § 14133 (b)(l)(A)-(C). Defendant’s argument that no data sequestration system is immune from abuse is no reason to disallow DNA identification sampling.”
United States v. Amerson, No. 05-1423-cr 05-1063-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2007). · cites it 2× “12 13 42 U.S.C. § 14133 (b)(1).2 Conversely, the Act proscribes unauthorized disclosures, imposing 14 penalties of up to one year in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000.”
United States v. Hook, George, No. 06-1362 (7th Cir. Dec. 13, 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 14133 (c). Against this backdrop, we consider Hook’s challenge to the probation officer’s directive to submit to DNA col- lection.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.