§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. BUZA

Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

20 Cited authorities

  1. Maryland v. King

    569 U.S. 435 (2013)   Cited 674 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a buccal swab to collect DNA constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment

  2. Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

    7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 640 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that students' consent to drug tests as a condition of participating in athletics barred their privacy claims

  3. Williams v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 222 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Concluding fear of retaliation cuts in favor of "facilitating collective actions so that individual employees need not run the risk of individual suits"

  4. People v. Monge

    16 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 244 times
    In People v. Monge (1997) 16 Cal.4th 826 (Monge I), the California Supreme Court considered a constitutional challenge to the retrial of a prior conviction allegation.

  5. People v. Robinson

    47 Cal.4th 1104 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that courts "must look to the statute's words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning."

  6. Raven v. Deukmejian

    52 Cal.3d 336 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 227 times
    Upholding Crime Victims Justice Reform Act (Proposition 115)

  7. People v. Crowson

    33 Cal.3d 623 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 111 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Crowson (1983) 33 Cal.3d 623, 629 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 165, 660 P.2d 389], we held that two suspects who had been arrested and were confined in the back of a police car had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore their tape-recorded conversation was admissible at trial.

  8. Loder v. Municipal Court

    17 Cal.3d 859 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 114 times
    Holding "the suspect's right of privacy is not violated by prompt and accurate public reporting of the facts and circumstances of his arrest"; noting "social interest" served by, inter alia, "put[ting] others on notice" and encouraging "witnesses to testify"

  9. Haskell v. Harris

    745 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 29 times
    Discussing limitations of use of DNA profile

  10. Lewis v. Superior Court (Medical Board of California)

    3 Cal.5th 561 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that physician had standing to assert privacy rights of patients whose prescription records had been accessed by state board

  11. Section 10-13-6-10 - Persons required to provide DNA sample; buccal swab; right to removal; probable cause required

    Ind. Code § 10-13-6-10   Cited 11 times

    (a) This section applies to the following: (1) A person arrested for a felony after December 31, 2017. (2) A person convicted of a felony under IC 35-42 (offenses against the person) or IC 35-43-2-1 (burglary): (A) after June 30, 1996, whether or not the person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment; or (B) before July 1, 1996, if the person is held in jail or prison on or after July 1, 1996. (3) A person convicted of a criminal law in effect before October 1, 1977, that penalized an act substantially

  12. Section 210 - Felony arrest - DNA testing required

    Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 210

    A. Subject to the availability of funds, a person eighteen (18) years of age or older who is arrested for the commission of a felony under the laws of this state or any other jurisdiction shall, upon being booked into a jail or detention facility, submit to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample collection for testing for DNA-identification-matching purposes in accordance with Section 150.27a of Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes and the rules promulgated by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation

  13. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or