State high court: It's OK to take inmates' DNA

Taking DNA samples from felons does not violate the state and federal constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The Legislature broadened the law in 2001 to require people convicted of any felony, not just sex crimes or burglaries, to yield DNA samples upon their convictions.

The law was sponsored by then-Rep. Jackie Winters, R-Salem, who now is in the Senate. The law enables agencies to compare the samples, which are compiled by the Oregon State Police, with other evidence that could yield clues to resolve other crimes.

Travis Ray Sanders challenged the law upon his 2003 conviction in Multnomah County Circuit Court for attempting to elude a police officer. He argued that yielding a DNA sample, normally obtained through an oral swatch or through blood, violated state and federal constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The trial-court judge and the Court of Appeals disagreed, and Sanders was ordered to submit the sample as a condition of his probation.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts.

"We think there are constitutionally sound reasons" to distinguish between suspicion-less searches and seizures from the general public and those convicted of felonies or released on parole, said Justice Michael Gillette, who wrote the court's opinion.

"It follows that what we may view as constitutionally unreasonable when done to those in the first group, we appropriately may view as permissible when done to those in the second."

Gillette said the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled directly on either state or federal laws, but federal appellate courts have ruled that such laws do not violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches.

In a footnote, Gillette wrote that the court's ruling should not be interpreted as depriving prisoners, probationers or parolees of all protections against unreasonable searches.

"Our holding is this case is limited to the relatively narrow issue presented by the present facts," he said.

Justices Martha Walters and Virginia Linder joined the court after the case was argued Sept. 6 and took no part in Thursday's decision.