STATE OF WISCONSIN
CIRCUIT COURT: .... County
STATE OF WISCONSIN File No. ......
vs. ORDER
A.B.
Address
City, State, Zip Code
, Respondent
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, To the Respondent named above:
Unless you choose to contest this Order, by appearing at the time, date, and place set forth below, you are ordered to present yourself to the .... county sheriff, [ADDRESS], no later than ...., between the hours of .... and ...., for the collection of a biological specimen, obtained by buccal swab, for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis and inclusion of the results of that analysis in the state crime laboratory's DNA database. YOU MUST BRING A COPY OF THIS ORDER WITH YOU. YOU MUST ALSO BRING TWO FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION, INCLUDING ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT-ISSUED, PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION. A copy of the petition submitted to obtain this order is attached.
If you wish to contest this order, you may do so by appearing in person at the time, date, and place set forth below, at which time you will have the opportunity to show cause to the court why you should not be required to provide a biological specimen for DNA analysis:
[Court information]
If you do not appear in person to contest this order at the time, date, and place set forth above, and you do not present yourself for collection of a biological specimen as directed, all of the following apply:
Dated: ...., .... (year)
By the Court signed: .... ....
This Order is entered under section 165.76 (6) of the Wisconsin Statutes. A copy of that section is attached.
Wis. Stat. § 165.76
The correct cross-reference is shown in brackets. Corrective legislation is pending.
When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the 4th amendment. In the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause, the arrestee's expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks for DNA. That same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody. Upon these considerations, DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 186 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013). DNA sampling under this section is constitutional. Shelton v. Grudman, 934 F. Supp. 1048 (1996). DNA Extraction on Arrest: Maryland v. King and Wisconsin's New Extraction Law. Dupuis. Wis. Law. Sept. 2013.