DNA Evidence Tossed, State Supremes to Take Case

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Randall <rvh40 () insightbb com>
Date: October 15, 2005 5:41:29 PM EDT
To: Dave <dave () farber net>
Subject: DNA Evidence Tossed, State Supremes to Take Case


http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/ 
0,1406,KNS_347_4159865,00.html
Legality of DNA match disputed

Knox judge halts rape trial, state Supreme Court to hear appeal

By JAMIE SATTERFIELD, satterfield () knews com
October 15, 2005

A Knox County judge on Friday called a halt to the upcoming trial of
Bruce Warren Scarborough, a suspect in several rapes of University of
Tennessee students.

Criminal Court Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz _issued a stay of prosecution
efforts to allow time for an appeal to the state Supreme Court on
whether Scarborough's rights were violated when his blood was taken and
his DNA profile entered into a _state database that ultimately linked
him to a series of attacks on University of Tennessee coeds in _1997.

The state's high court has agreed to hear the appeal. The court's
eventual ruling will be a landmark decision, as Tennessee's method of
collecting blood from felons for use in a DNA database has never been
legally tested.

Scarborough had been set to stand trial Oct. 31 in one of five rapes of
which he is accused.

Scarborough, a career criminal, was serving time in prison for the
sexual assault of a Blount County woman when, in 2002, a random run
through the state's DNA database linked him to the UT attacks.

His blood had been taken for DNA analysis when he was sent to prison
four years earlier. His attorney, Assistant Public Defender John
Halstead, is challenging the constitutionality of that blood collection.

Scarborough was not a suspect in the UT rapes when his blood was taken.
He also was not a suspect when the DNA match was made. That means police
had no probable cause to take his blood, a fact that normally would lead
a judge to toss out that evidence as a violation of the Fourth
Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable" searches and
seizures.

But Scarborough had not been singled out for blood collection and
testing. All convicted felons are required under state law to submit
blood for the DNA database. They can refuse, but doing so will deprive
them of so-called good behavior credits and even parole.

In a ruling earlier this year, the state Court of Criminal Appeals ruled
that the state's method of collecting felons' blood was not
unconstitutional. The court opined that prisoners do not have the same
privacy rights guaranteed the general public.

The state Supreme Court has not yet decided when it will hear the case,
but Halstead has said it likely will be January before oral arguments
are held.

Jamie Satterfield may be reached at 865-342-6308.



--
"There comes a time when every man feels the urge to spit on his
hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats."
-- H.L.  Mencken 



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/