Court of Appeals of Maryland· 4/24/2012
King v. State
Citations
- 42 A.3d 549
- 425 Md. 550
- 2012 WL 1392636
- 2012 Md. LEXIS 211
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- the match “may be used[] only as probable cause to obtain a warrant to obtain a second sample [from the person associated with the DNA record] and is not admissible as evidence at trial.”
- “It is generally preferable for a court to analyze whether a statute is constitutional under the more narrow as-applied standard first, as a matter of judicial efficiency[,] rather than analyzing the broader facial challenge first.” (Citation omitted)
- “It is generally preferable for a court to analyze whether a statute is constitutional under the more narrow as-applied standard first, as a matter of judicial efficiency[,] rather than analyzing the broader facial challenge first.” (Citation omitted)
- “The information derived from a fingerprint is related only to physical characteristics and can be used to identify a person, but no more. A DNA sample, obtained through a buccal swab, contains within it unarguably much more than a person’s identity.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Barbera, Harrell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Maryland v. KingSupreme Court· 2013-06-03· cited 671×
- United States v. Earl DavisFourth Circuit· 2012-08-16· cited 120×
- People v. BuzaCalifornia Supreme Court· 2018-04-02· cited 75×
- Pearson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2014-02-21· cited 39×
- Allmond v. Department of Health & Mental HygieneCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2016-07-11· cited 30×
- King v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2013-09-25· cited 24×
- Corbin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2012-08-22· cited 21×
- Varriale v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2015-08-11· cited 17×
- Motor Vehicle Administration v. SeenathCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2016-05-23· cited 16×
- Mario W. v. Hon. kaipio/stateArizona Supreme Court· 2012-06-27· cited 10×
- Feaster v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2012-06-29· cited 10×
- Diggs v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2013-08-28· cited 10×
- State v. MedinaSupreme Court of Vermont· 2014-07-11· cited 9×
- Browne v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2013-11-06· cited 2×
Cites
73 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 37,942×
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court· 1979-05-14· cited 11,438×
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 9,088×
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 1971-06-21· cited 9,038×
- Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court· 1978-06-26· cited 8,679×
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1966-06-20· cited 6,067×
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court· 1987-05-26· cited 5,104×
- United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court· 1973-12-11· cited 3,538×
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court· 1989-03-21· cited 2,560×
- Griffin v. WisconsinSupreme Court· 1987-06-26· cited 2,149×
- Ohio v. RobinetteSupreme Court· 1996-11-18· cited 2,025×
- United States v. KnightsSupreme Court· 2001-12-10· cited 1,478×
- Vernonia School District 47J v. ActonSupreme Court· 1995-06-26· cited 1,470×
- Davis v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1969-04-23· cited 1,385×
- City of Chicago v. MoralesSupreme Court· 1999-06-10· cited 1,379×
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican PartySupreme Court· 2008-03-18· cited 1,365×
- Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. FoxSupreme Court· 1989-06-29· cited 1,218×
- City of Indianapolis v. EdmondSupreme Court· 2000-11-28· cited 1,205×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.