It is the policy of this State to assist federal, state, and local criminal justice
and law enforcement agencies in the identification, detection, or exclusion of individuals
who are subjects of the investigation or prosecution of crimes. Identification, detection,
and exclusion may be facilitated by the DNA analysis of biological evidence left by
the perpetrator of a crime and recovered from the crime scene. The DNA analysis of
biological evidence can also be used to identify missing persons. (Added 1997, No. 160 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. April 29, 1998; amended 2009, No. 1, § 19, eff. March 4, 2009.)
State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 8ד20 V.S.A. § 1931. These express purposes remain unchanged.”
State v. Medina, 2014 VT 69 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 5ד” 20 V.S.A. § 1931. These purposes are distinct from the normal law-enforcement activities of investigating particular people for crimes already committed.”
State v. Joseph Leland Bruyette, 2021 VT 43 (Vt. 2021). “If any submission to another jurisdiction or any defect in the collection or submission process, regardless of the cause, relieved a person from the obligation to provide a DNA sample to the Vermont database, the statute would inhibit the effective use of the DNA database.”
State v. Martin (Vt. 2008). · cites it 4ד20 V.S.A. § 1931. These express purposes remain unchanged.”
Bruyette v. Menard (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). “Bruyette implies that the DOC is refusing to consider him for programming in retaliation for not voluntarily providing a DNA sample to the state DNA database.”
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.