Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

73 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.