This case came out in November. I originally did not include it in this blog, as the analysis is of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, although the opinion does mention the Ohio Constitution. Professor Steinglass reminds me, however, that, “It is important to monitor the various ways the court nuances its statements about the relationship of the state and federal search/seizure guarantees.”
State v. Emerson, 2012-Ohio-5047, 11/1/12. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her DNA profile extracted from a lawfully obtained DNA sample, and a defendant lacks standing to object to its use by the state in a subsequent criminal investigation. This is true despite the subject’s acquittal on the charge that was the basis for obtaining the DNA sample. While the Court mostly analyzed the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it stated, We have interpreted Article I, Section 14 “to protect the same interests and in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” Docket. Argument Video. Oral Argument Summary. Opinion Summary.
