42 U.S.C. § 14135a
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 132
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011).
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000). Congress amended the Act in 2004 to expand the qualifying offenses to all felonies.”
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
United States v. Reynard, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “Specifically, officer Dilbeck alleged that Reynard “declined to cooperate in the collection of his blood in order to obtain a DNA sample, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.” On July 11, 2002, Reynard filed the instant motion to dismiss Probation Officer Dilbeck’s petition for…”
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)), individuals convicted of a “qualifying Federal offense” must provide a “tissue, fluid, or other bodily sample” for analysis.”
United States v. John G. Reynard, 473 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000), (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)). Failure to provide a blood sample constituted a violation of the terms of his supervised release.”
United States v. Sarun Cooper, 396 F.3d 308 (3rd Cir. 2005). “In this appeal involving police enforcement of crime control, we are called upon to decide whether the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000) (the “DNA Act”) requires a defendant convicted of possession of stolen bank funds in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. George C. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2), (b). Failure of an individual covered by the DNA Act to submit to DNA collection constitutes a class A misdemeanor subject to punishment according to Title 18.”
United States v. Lawrence Peterson, 394 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2005). “The government appeals, contending that, because Peterson was convicted of bank larceny, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (the “DNA Act”), required him to submit to the collection of a DNA sample, and his refusal violated the terms of his…”
United States v. Sczubelek, 255 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Del. 2003). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2). A “DNA sample” is defined as “tissue, fluid or other bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be carried out.”
United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2005). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1), (2). If this condition is violated, the probation officer must report the violation to the court, and the court remains the final arbiter.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(1) — 1 case
United States v. Cooper (3rd Cir. 2005).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(2) — 1 case
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 345 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(5)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Stewart, 468 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D. Mass. 2007).
United States v. Weikert, 421 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D. Mass. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a) — 10 cases
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2011).
Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012).
Boroian v. Mueller, 616 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010).
United States v. Reynard, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “Specifically, officer Dilbeck alleged that Reynard “declined to cooperate in the collection of his blood in order to obtain a DNA sample, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.” On July 11, 2002, Reynard filed the instant motion to dismiss Probation Officer Dilbeck’s petition for…”
United States v. Lawrence Peterson, 394 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2005). “The government appeals, contending that, because Peterson was convicted of bank larceny, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (the “DNA Act”), required him to submit to the collection of a DNA sample, and his refusal violated the terms of his…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1) — 9 cases
United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2005). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1), (2). If this condition is violated, the probation officer must report the violation to the court, and the court remains the final arbiter.”
Vore v. United States Dep't of Just., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Ariz. 2003).
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
United States v. John G. Reynard, 473 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000), (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)). Failure to provide a blood sample constituted a violation of the terms of his supervised release.”
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1)(A) — 10 cases
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000). Congress amended the Act in 2004 to expand the qualifying offenses to all felonies.”
King v. State, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. 2012).
United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010).
State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (Vt. 2008).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1)(B) — 5 cases
Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
United States v. Wynn, 553 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
Jackson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C. 2009).
United States v. Carl Wynn, Jr. (8th Cir. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2) — 33 cases
United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2003).
United States v. George C. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2), (b). Failure of an individual covered by the DNA Act to submit to DNA collection constitutes a class A misdemeanor subject to punishment according to Title 18.”
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
United States v. John G. Reynard, 473 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000), (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)). Failure to provide a blood sample constituted a violation of the terms of his supervised release.”
United States v. Reynard, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “Specifically, officer Dilbeck alleged that Reynard “declined to cooperate in the collection of his blood in order to obtain a DNA sample, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.” On July 11, 2002, Reynard filed the instant motion to dismiss Probation Officer Dilbeck’s petition for…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(4) — 2 cases
United States v. Sczubelek, 255 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Del. 2003). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2). A “DNA sample” is defined as “tissue, fluid or other bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be carried out.”
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(4)(A) — 7 cases
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
Boroian v. Mueller, 616 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010).
United States v. Miles, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2002).
Vore v. United States Dep't of Just., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Ariz. 2003).
United States v. Sczubelek, 255 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Del. 2003). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2). A “DNA sample” is defined as “tissue, fluid or other bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be carried out.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(40)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2005). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1), (2). If this condition is violated, the probation officer must report the violation to the court, and the court remains the final arbiter.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(5) — 20 cases
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
United States v. Reynard, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “Specifically, officer Dilbeck alleged that Reynard “declined to cooperate in the collection of his blood in order to obtain a DNA sample, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.” On July 11, 2002, Reynard filed the instant motion to dismiss Probation Officer Dilbeck’s petition for…”
United States v. George C. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2), (b). Failure of an individual covered by the DNA Act to submit to DNA collection constitutes a class A misdemeanor subject to punishment according to Title 18.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(5)(A) — 3 cases
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 345 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003).
Johnson v. Quander, 370 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2005).
United States v. Lawrence Peterson, 394 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2005). “The government appeals, contending that, because Peterson was convicted of bank larceny, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (the “DNA Act”), required him to submit to the collection of a DNA sample, and his refusal violated the terms of his…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(l) — 15 cases
United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2005). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1), (2). If this condition is violated, the probation officer must report the violation to the court, and the court remains the final arbiter.”
United States v. Reynard, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “Specifically, officer Dilbeck alleged that Reynard “declined to cooperate in the collection of his blood in order to obtain a DNA sample, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.” On July 11, 2002, Reynard filed the instant motion to dismiss Probation Officer Dilbeck’s petition for…”
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)), individuals convicted of a “qualifying Federal offense” must provide a “tissue, fluid, or other bodily sample” for analysis.”
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
United States v. Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756 (5th Cir. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(l)(A) — 9 cases
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
King v. State, 42 A.3d 549 (Md. 2012).
United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000). Congress amended the Act in 2004 to expand the qualifying offenses to all felonies.”
United States v. Mitchell, 681 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Pa. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(l)(B) — 6 cases
Boroian v. Mueller, 616 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010).
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
United States v. Thomas, 736 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2013).
United States v. Bean, 214 F. App'x 568 (6th Cir. 2007).
Jackson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 657 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(b) — 13 cases
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
United States v. Reynard, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “Specifically, officer Dilbeck alleged that Reynard “declined to cooperate in the collection of his blood in order to obtain a DNA sample, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.” On July 11, 2002, Reynard filed the instant motion to dismiss Probation Officer Dilbeck’s petition for…”
United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Harvey Hugs, 384 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2004).
Banks v. United States, 490 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2007).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(b)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Fricosu, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Colo. 2012).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(c)(1) — 4 cases
People v. Ramos, 817 N.E.2d 1110 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Amerson (2d Cir. 2007).
People v. Ramos (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(c)(2) — 4 cases
United States v. Earl Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Ultimately, the District Court concluded that "42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and its accompanying regulations, requiring a charged defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in [the Combined DNA Index System] [6] without independent suspicion or a warrant[,] unreasonably…”
Word v. United States Prob. Dep't, 439 F. Supp. 2d 497 (D.S.C. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(c)(l) — 6 cases
People v. Ramos, 817 N.E.2d 1110 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)), individuals convicted of a “qualifying Federal offense” must provide a “tissue, fluid, or other bodily sample” for analysis.”
Banks v. United States, 490 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 345 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d) — 23 cases
United States v. George C. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2), (b). Failure of an individual covered by the DNA Act to submit to DNA collection constitutes a class A misdemeanor subject to punishment according to Title 18.”
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000). Congress amended the Act in 2004 to expand the qualifying offenses to all felonies.”
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)), individuals convicted of a “qualifying Federal offense” must provide a “tissue, fluid, or other bodily sample” for analysis.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(1) — 6 cases
United States v. Sarun Cooper, 396 F.3d 308 (3rd Cir. 2005). “In this appeal involving police enforcement of crime control, we are called upon to decide whether the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000) (the “DNA Act”) requires a defendant convicted of possession of stolen bank funds in violation of 18 U.”
Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
United States v. Coccia, 598 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Cooper (3rd Cir. 2005).
United States v. Amerson (2d Cir. 2007).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Cooper (3rd Cir. 2005).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(1)(E) — 1 case
Vore v. United States Dep't of Just., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Ariz. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Martin Diamond, 463 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(l) — 10 cases
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007). “2726 (2000) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000)), individuals convicted of a “qualifying Federal offense” must provide a “tissue, fluid, or other bodily sample” for analysis.”
Banks v. United States, 490 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2007).
Boroian v. Mueller, 616 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010).
United States v. Zimmerman, 514 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2007).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(l)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Sarun Cooper, 396 F.3d 308 (3rd Cir. 2005). “In this appeal involving police enforcement of crime control, we are called upon to decide whether the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000) (the “DNA Act”) requires a defendant convicted of possession of stolen bank funds in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Lawrence Peterson, 394 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2005). “The government appeals, contending that, because Peterson was convicted of bank larceny, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (the “DNA Act”), required him to submit to the collection of a DNA sample, and his refusal violated the terms of his…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(l)(E) — 4 cases
United States v. Lawrence Peterson, 394 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2005). “The government appeals, contending that, because Peterson was convicted of bank larceny, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (the “DNA Act”), required him to submit to the collection of a DNA sample, and his refusal violated the terms of his…”
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 345 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Reynard, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “Specifically, officer Dilbeck alleged that Reynard “declined to cooperate in the collection of his blood in order to obtain a DNA sample, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.” On July 11, 2002, Reynard filed the instant motion to dismiss Probation Officer Dilbeck’s petition for…”
United States v. Curtis, 245 F. Supp. 2d 512 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(e) — 3 cases
United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000). Congress amended the Act in 2004 to expand the qualifying offenses to all felonies.”
United States v. Harvey Hugs, 384 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Kriesel (9th Cir. 2007).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(e)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 14135a (b). The DNA Act thus entangles probation officers with normal law enforcement officers in a collective effort to investigate, solve, and prosecute crimes.”
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(e)(l) — 4 cases
United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135a(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1). [1] The DNA Act specifies that the government may "use or authorize the use of such means as are reasonably necessary" to collect a DNA sample.”
United States v. Sczubelek, 255 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Del. 2003). “42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(2). A “DNA sample” is defined as “tissue, fluid or other bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be carried out.”
United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Weikert, 421 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D. Mass. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(l) — 1 case
United States v. Sarun Cooper, 396 F.3d 308 (3rd Cir. 2005). “In this appeal involving police enforcement of crime control, we are called upon to decide whether the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a (2000) (the “DNA Act”) requires a defendant convicted of possession of stolen bank funds in violation of 18 U.”
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.