State v. Chambers

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE, v. JOHN CHAMBERS, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Sep 28, 2010

I.D. # 0605020050 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2010)

Opinion

I.D. No. 0605020050.

September 28, 2010.

ORDER

The Honorable JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS, III.

On this 28^th day of September, 2010, upon consideration of the State's Motion for an Order to appear and provide a Biological Sample Pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 4713, dated June 15, 2010, it appears that:

1. On July 12, 2007, Defendant plead guilty to Burglary 1^st degree and was sentenced to eight years supervision at level five, suspended after two years for 18 months supervision at level three, suspended after six months for 12 months at supervision level two.

2. Defendant was released from incarceration on August 22, 2008, and remained on supervised probation, which was transferred to Philadelphia, until May 6, 2010. During his time of incarceration and supervised release, Defendant did not provide a biological sample to the Department of Corrections.

3. The plain and unambiguous language of 29 Del. C. § 4713 requires Defendant to have a biological sample taken by the Department of Corrections for inclusion in law enforcement identification databases. The Defendant's obligation in this regard is not dependent upon his custodial status.¹ "If the statute as a whole is unambiguous, there is no reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the words used and the Court's role is then limited to an application of the literal meaning of the words."²

1 29 Del. C. § 4713(b)(1) ("Any person convicted . . . of any offense or attempted offense . . . or who is in the custody of the Department of Corrections . . . shall have a biological sample taken by the Department of Corrections for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) law enforcement identification databases.").

2 Coastal Barge Corp. v. Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 492 A.2d 1242, 1246 (1984).

4. Even if this Court was to reject the plain language of the statute, Defendant would still be required to provide a biological sample under the Third Circuit's balancing approach to compelling DNA testing.³ The State's interest in cataloguing and identifying felons as mandated by Delaware law outweighs the minimal "privacy interests implicated by the collection of DNA. . . ."⁴ IT IS SO ORDERED on this 28^h Day of September, 2010, that the State's Motion for Order to Appear to Provide a Biological Sample Pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 4713 is GRANTED. The Prothonotary shall issue a summons to the Defendant's address, 1804 Waterloo Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, ordering the Defendant to appear at the Department of Corrections, Howard R. Young Correctional Institute, 1301 East 12^th Street, Wilmington, Delaware, on the 25^th day of October, 2010 to provide a biological sample.

3 Word v. US Probation Dept., 439 F.Supp.2d 497, 501-502 (3d Cir. 2006) (". . . the Court must balance the plaintiff's privacy interests against the public interests served by acquiring the sample.").

4 Unites States v. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175, 185 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that the DNA sampling requirement was a reasonable search and that the DNA statute did not violate the separation of powers doctrine).