In Re DNA Ex Post Facto Issues

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that South Carolina’s “DNA- sample requirement” does “not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause” because it is “not penal in nature”
• \[T]he relatively small size of the fee also indicates that it was not intended to have significant retributive or deterrent value.\
• \[T]he relatively small size of the fee also indicates that it was not intended to have significant retributive or deterrent value.\
• \the relatively small size of the fee . . . indicate[d] that it was not intended to have a significant retributive or deterrent value...\
• \[T]he relatively small size of the fee also indicates that it was not intended to have significant retributive or deterrent value.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).