42 U.S.C. § 14135e

Transferred

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

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases, 2002–2013 · leading case: United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(b); 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (b)(3)(A) (disclosure permitted "to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement identification purposes").”

Banks v. United States, 490 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(b) (stating that DNA profiles may be used only for specified purposes).”

United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(b). The Crime Control Act limits the disclosure of the test results to “criminal justice agencies for law enforcement identification purposes,” for use *182 “in judicial proceedings,” and “for criminal defense purposes, to a defendant.”

United States v. Earl Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Safety § 2-512 (providing penalties for persons who misuse, dis- close, or fail to destroy certain DNA records as required by the Maryland Act); 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135e(c), 14132(c) (same as to federal DNA act).”

Johnson v. Quander, 370 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c). (B) Factual Background On December 20, 2001, the plaintiff, Lamar Johnson, was convicted in the Superi- *84 or Court of the District of Columbia of two counts of unarmed robbery in violation of D.”

United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c). Hence, the potential for unauthorized access to personal information, in violation of the explicit terms of the DNA Act, does not significantly increase Weikert's privacy interest in the present case.”

United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “The statute imposes criminal and financial penalties for improper use of DNA samples, 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c), and limits access to DNA materials, 42 U.”

United States v. Thomas Kriesel, Jr., 720 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e. But no one can assure the over ten million Americans whose blood samples are currently held by the government, or the untold millions to come, that their samples will never be misused.”

United States v. Miles, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135e(a)(b),14132(b)(3). The Act also provides a number of privacy protections, including limiting the use of the information, criminalizing the knowing, unauthorized retention or disclosure of a DNA sample, and’expunging a person’s DNA records upon proof that…”

United States v. George C. Hook, 471 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006). “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e. Furthermore, the probation officer has no discretion about who will be subject to DNA collection: all individuals covered by the DNA Act must provide a DNA sample.”

United States v. Sczubelek, 255 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Del. 2003). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135e(a)(b), 14132(b)(3). The DNA Act restricts the use of information and criminalizes the knowing, unauthorized retention or disclosure of a DNA sample.”

United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of Am. v. Julius Graves, 483 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2007). “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c). Moreover, it provides for the expungement of an individual’s DNA information if the felony conviction is reversed or dismissed.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(a)(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Miles, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2002). “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135e(a)(b),14132(b)(3). The Act also provides a number of privacy protections, including limiting the use of the information, criminalizing the knowing, unauthorized retention or disclosure of a DNA sample, and’expunging a person’s DNA records upon proof that…”

United States v. Sczubelek, 255 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D. Del. 2003). “42 U.S.C. §§ 14135e(a)(b), 14132(b)(3). The DNA Act restricts the use of information and criminalizes the knowing, unauthorized retention or disclosure of a DNA sample.”

— 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(b) — 7 cases

United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007). “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(b); 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (b)(3)(A) (disclosure permitted "to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement identification purposes").”

Banks v. United States, 490 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2007). “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(b) (stating that DNA profiles may be used only for specified purposes).”

United States v. Paul G. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3rd Cir. 2005). “See 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(b). The Crime Control Act limits the disclosure of the test results to “criminal justice agencies for law enforcement identification purposes,” for use *182 “in judicial proceedings,” and “for criminal defense purposes, to a defendant.”

United States v. Stegman, 295 F. Supp. 2d 542 (D. Maryland 2003).

Banks v. Gonzales, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (N.D. Okla. 2006).

— 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c) — 19 cases

United States v. Earl Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2012). “Safety § 2-512 (providing penalties for persons who misuse, dis- close, or fail to destroy certain DNA records as required by the Maryland Act); 42 U.S.C. §§ 14135e(c), 14132(c) (same as to federal DNA act).”

Johnson v. Quander, 370 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D.D.C. 2005). “42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c). (B) Factual Background On December 20, 2001, the plaintiff, Lamar Johnson, was convicted in the Superi- *84 or Court of the District of Columbia of two counts of unarmed robbery in violation of D.”

United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c). Hence, the potential for unauthorized access to personal information, in violation of the explicit terms of the DNA Act, does not significantly increase Weikert's privacy interest in the present case.”

United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010). “The statute imposes criminal and financial penalties for improper use of DNA samples, 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(c), and limits access to DNA materials, 42 U.”

— 42 U.S.C. § 14135e(e) — 1 case

United States v. Fricosu, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Colo. 2012).

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.