Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SARAH L. NAGY Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JAMES KEENEY, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 21A01-0611-CR-495

APPEAL FROM THE FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Daniel Lee Pflum, Judge Cause No. 21C01-0210-FB-214

September 13, 2007

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE James Keeney appeals the trial court's order requiring him to provide a DNA sample to the State after he pleaded guilty to Forgery, a Class C felony. He raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether Indiana Code Section 10-13-6-10, which requires felons to submit such DNA samples, is unconstitutional. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 8, 2006, Keeney pleaded guilty to forgery, a Class C felony, in connection with his management of the Connersville Municipal Airport in April of 2001. At his sentencing hearing on October 10, 2006, Keeney made a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The court then sentenced Keeney to four years, with one and one-half years to be served in home detention in Ohio and the rest of his sentence suspended, pursuant to the plea agreement. The court also directed Keeney to submit to DNA testing, to which Keeney objected. This appeal ensued. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Keeney contends that Indiana Code Section 10-13-6-10, which requires "[a] person convicted of a felony . . . after June 30, 2005, whether or not the person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment," to provide a DNA sample to the State is unconstitutional in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Samson v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2193 (2006). The State responds that Samson does not overrule our precedents on this issue, namely Balding v. State, 812 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We agree with the State.
2

Keeney's brief, discussed further below, ignores relevant Indiana case law on this issue. Specifically, in Balding, we stated as follows: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." (emphasis added). The Fourth Amendment thus prohibits searches and seizures that are unreasonable. Generally, searches and seizures are unreasonable if conducted without an individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 [] (2000). One exception to this rule exists where suspicionless searches are designed to serve "special needs," or needs that are beyond the normal need for law enforcement. Id. When such special needs are alleged as justification of a suspicionless search, we must conduct a context-specific inquiry and examine closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. Kopkey v. State, 743 N.E.2d 331, 336-37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. *** Neither party asserts that an individualized suspicion of wrongdoing existed in this case. Therefore, the compulsory collection of DNA samples for inclusion in the Indiana DNA Database [under Ind. Code

Download James Keeney v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law