State v. O'HAGEN

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a \cheek swab is a very minor physical intrusion upon the person\ and \is no more intrusive than the fingerprint procedure . . . that a person must already undergo as part of the normal arrest process\
• upholding a similar New Jersey DNA statute under the Fourth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution
• applying special needs analysis to uphold statute requiring all those convicted of certain offenses to provide blood sample for DNA testing
• finding a special need “because the testing is not for the immediate investigation of a specific crime”
• upholding constitutionality of a statute requiring DNA collection from \[ejvery person convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime\
• upholding constitutionality of statute requiring DNA collection from “[ejvery person convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime ” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).