People v. Robinson: Developments and Problems in the Use of John Doe DNA Arrest Warrants

People v. Robinson: Developments and Problems in the Use of John Doe DNA Arrest Warrants


Last year, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Robinson, a case in which the defendant was convicted of rape for an incident that occurred in 1994. DNA evidence gathered at the scene provided extraordinarily persuasive evidence that he was the perpetrator. Despite this evidence, the case was unusual for an important reason: authorities did not locate Robinson until after the six-year statute of limitations had run on the crime. The arrest warrant had issued just days before the statute had run, but it did not contain Robinson’s name or a physical description. Rather, it contained only a DNA profile created by the California Department of Justice. Robinson was not located by traditional police procedure; he was found after a computer matched the DNA profile from the arrest warrant with DNA collected after Robinson had been arrested for a second crime.

This Note examines the history of courts’ treatment of these so-called “John Doe” DNA arrest warrants, their constitutionality, and their statutory validity in California. It then examines the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Robinson, ultimately arguing that the decision””while correct””overreaches with respect to the exclusionary rule and the statute of limitations.

 

PDF

More in this Issue

Structuring a Sustainable Letters of Marque Regime: How Commissioning Privateers Can Defeat the Somali Pirates

Piracy is a complex problem that threatens maritime safety and interferes with global commerce. Supported by networks of financiers and negotiators, Somali pirates viciously attack seafarers across expansive stretches of the Indian Ocean. Despite costly naval interventions, pirates continue to strike. Powerful nations from around the globe have been unsuccessful at stemming the problem because […]

On the Meaning of Horizontal Agreements in Competition Law

Competition law’s prohibition on price fixing and related horizontal agreements is one of its few uncontroversial provisions and is understood to be well grounded in economic principles that are taken to provide the foundation for competition policy. Upon examination, however, commonly offered views of the law’s conception of agreement prove to be difficult to articulate […]