42 U.S.C. § 14135
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases, 2002–2013 · leading case: Kaemmerling v. Lappin
Kaemmerling v. Lappin (2008)
“SENTELLE, Chief Judge: Russell Kaemmerling, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his action seeking to enjoin application of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (“DNA Act” or “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135 -14135e. Kaemmerling alleged…”
United States v. Mitchell (2011)
“But this ignores the fact that the searches and seizure of one's DNA permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 14135 (a)(1)(A) implicate privacy interests far more expansive than mere identity.”
United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek (2005)
“The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (DNA Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135 — -14135e (2001 Supp.), mandates the collection of DNA samples from prisoners, parolees, and individuals on probation and supervised release who have committed certain qualifying offenses.”
Johnson v. Quander (2005)
“Accordingly, Congress passed the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (“DNA Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 14135 et seq., which authorizes the “Attorney General to make grants to eligible States .”
State v. McKinney (2007)
“10 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135 to 14135e (2000 & Supp.”
Hamilton v. Brown (2011)
“42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a), (d); 28 C.F.R. § 28.”
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade (2004)
“§ 14135b, and the Armed Forces, 10 U.S.C. § 1565 . The Act also appropriates $170 million to support state efforts to collect and to store DNA profiles from state offenders and crime scene evidence.”
United States v. Miles (2002)
“Defendant’s probation officer directed him to submit a blood sample for deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) analysis pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135 . Defendant refused to appear for DNA testing, and consequently a petition was filed…”
United States v. George C. Hook (2006)
“2726 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135 -14135e) (collectively “DNA Act”).”
United States v. Sczubelek (2003)
“188) After serving approximately two years of supervised release, a United States probation officer notified defendant by telephone that he was scheduled for a DNA 2 collection on September 25, 2002, pursuant to the DNA Analysis Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135 -14135e (2001…”
People v. Ramos (2004)
“In the instant case, the court order directing defendant to supply a blood sample was entered at the time of sentencing and it was contemplated that this would be a one-time occurrence which would be carried out immediately.”
Powers v. State (2011)
“Every state has implemented legislation requiring individuals convicted of certain crimes to submit DNA samples and providing for the storage of DNA profiles developed from such samples in DNA databases, 14 Newton, DNA Evidence at 50, and as long as the DNA profiles have been…”
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.