Minnesota justices hear arguments about collecting DNA from crime suspects

Last year, Dakota County resumed collecting DNA samples from suspects charged with some violent crimes — despite the practice having been ruled unconstitutional by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The county did so because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of a Maryland law similar to the one struck down in Minnesota.

Public defenders fought the practice, arguing that a high court's ruling shouldn't set precedent here.

On Thursday night, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Dakota County Sheriff Tim Leslie vs. John David Emerson at Mitchell Hamline Law School in St. Paul. They centered on whether a district court can intervene to prohibit the collection of DNA samples from uncharged suspects.

It was the latest exchange in the battle over the legality of collecting DNA from those accused of serious crimes, which has raged forth in state courts for years.

William McGeveran, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said if the state Supreme Court ultimately decides to support Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom's arguments, other authorities across the state will be emboldened to resume such DNA collection.

However, if the high court sides with the public defenders, the case's impact could go well beyond local authorities.

Emerson, who was charged with second-degree assault, was granted a motion at his first appearance in Dakota County District Court that prohibited Sheriff Leslie from collecting a biological sample that would be used to extract DNA. The state Court of Appeals then denied the sheriff's petition to prohibit the district court from enforcing that order.

During Thursday's oral arguments, the question was raised of whether the district court exceeded its authority.

The attorney representing Emerson said the district court protected her client's presumption of innocence by prohibiting a DNA sample. The defense brief argued that the state's statute "relied on by the Sheriff was declared unconstitutional in 2006 and remains unconstitutional despite Dakota County's unlawful attempts to revive it."

Cathryn Middlebrook, Emerson's attorney, said Leslie was not acting with the current law behind him.

But Assistant Dakota County Attorney Helen Brosnahan argued that taking a sample doesn't hinder the suspect's rights. Brosnahan repeatedly said that the collection is for identification purposes only, not for evidence. And if the suspect is not convicted of the crime, the sample will be disposed of, she said.

But on another point, she and all present appeared to agree: "This issue is a pressing one," Chutich said.