Vanderlinden v. State of Kan.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because privacy rights were implicated by genetic marker testing, the application of strict scrutiny was warranted
• holding that procedural due process was satisfied when the Kansas legislature passed the law requiring persons convicted of certain offenses to provide DNA samples
• finding that, because DNA law “is not punitive but furthers a governmental interest in law enforcement, it follows that the statute does not violate ex post facto principles”
• relying on Jones to reject Fourth Amendment challenge to North Carolina statute
• involving juvenile required to give DNA sample
• involving juvenile required to give DNA sample

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).