REPOST: Arizona immigration law fight continues for civil rights groups

This Huffington Post article reports the status of  the controversial immigrant law in Arizona and  the strong reaction of  the hispanic community and immigration advocates about its effects.
 

Image Source: huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- In 1994, Thomas Saenz was just a few years out of Yale Law School when one of the most high-profile immigration law fights erupted in California. Lawmakers were pushing Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that would have prohibited undocumented individuals from using public services; his state became the epicenter of the country's battles over immigration rights.

A first-year staff attorney at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and a third-generation Mexican-American, Saenz was handed a tough task. The initiative enjoyed overwhelming support from Republicans, including Gov. Pete Wilson, leaving opponents with few political options. So they chose a legal one.

After the referendum's passage by voters in November 1994, the legal defense fund took to the courts to try to stall its enactment, with Saenz presenting written and oral arguments on numerous occasions. The tactic worked: Implementation of the new law was delayed, and in 1999 when Democrat Gov. Gray Davis took office, he stopped defending it in court, meaning the law did not survive.

Nearly 13 years later, the lessons from Prop 187 still resonate, and Saenz again finds himself hunkered down in the legal trenches. Having returned to the legal defense fund as its president after a stint serving as counsel to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, he, along with a cadre of like-minded groups and lawyers, is playing a critical behind-the-scenes role in trying to stop Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070.

"A lot of people can be hurt by these kinds of proposals, so you really have to stop them and hold them off," said Saenz, who at 46 still retains a youthful look despite a sprinkling of gray hair.

So far, efforts to thwart the Arizona law's enactment have met with mixed success. While the Supreme Court last week struck down parts of the Arizona law, it upheld its centerpiece, the "papers, please" provision that lets police check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an unauthorized immigrant.

But the court could have upheld the law in its entirety (as many expected) and the fact that it left the door open for a striking down of the "papers, please" provision has been hailed as a breakthrough by many immigration reform advocates.

The court's ruling also paves the way for additional legal challenges.

Initially the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others had sued Arizona on the grounds that the law pre-empted federal authority and could lead to racial profiling and diminished rights for day laborers and other immigrants. The Justice Department later sued, and the fact that its challenge went to the Supreme Court is seen by some civil rights advocates as an affirmation that their best chance for progress may come through the courts.

Going the litigation route when other means of political influence fall short is a method that civil rights groups have tapped before. The 1951 filing of the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case resulted in the ending of segregation in public education and proved a defining moment in the civil rights movement. Over time, legal wins have led to legislative victories, including the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Ben Jealous, the current president of the NAACP, sees similarities between previous civil rights struggles and the obstacles now faced by those seeking immigration reform. He likened the “show me your papers” provision of Arizona's law to the days when free blacks had to carry documents when traveling across states or else face the threat of being forced back into slavery. With this history in mind, he deemed it “a fairly easy call” to join the lawsuit against SB 1070.

"That took the issue to the 75 yard line,” Jealous said of last week's Supreme Court ruling. “We’ve got to get across the goal line, keep on litigating until an end to racial profiling is achieved as well. You just keep on pushing."

Many Latino immigration rights advocacy groups are following that advice.

The National Day Laborer Organizing Network, for example, worked with the Mexican American legal defense fund to challenge ordinances in Redondo Beach and Costa Mesa, Calif., and other places that barred workers from soliciting employment on streets or highways. The Redondo Beach ordinance was ruled unconstitutional in September by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, on the grounds that it violated the right to freedom of speech.

The legal fights are "like putting one's finger in the dam," said the National Day Laborer Organizing Network's legal director, Chris Newman, stressing the need for a broader political movement to ultimately resolve problems facing immigrant communities.

"From our perspective, litigation is best when used as a tool to advance organizing," Newman said. "In the end what's happening is Arizona is about political power."

Sometimes lawsuits have been used as an organizing tool as Hispanic immigration advocacy groups try to sway public opinion. Omar Jadwat, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants Rights Project, said that more state legislatures are slowly coming to the conclusion that laws like SB 1070 are not the answer to immigration concerns. But it’s important to ensure that “scapegoating and dividing of communities and racial profiling aren’t allowed to happen in the meantime,” he said.

Karen Tumlin, managing attorney at National Immigration Law Center, said her group felt felt compelled to join the coalition suing the state of Arizona out of concern that SB 1070 would become the first of several dominoes to fall -- that is, states adopting laws that drastically restrict immigrants' rights. Since Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed the Arizona law in 2010, a number of states, including Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, have enacted copycat legislation.

"We're drawing a line in the sand here," Tumlin said. "We will not accept this for our communities."

The coalition is still analyzing last week’s Supreme Court decision to see what implications it could have on the case. The coalition's primary focus for now is to make sure the law does not go into effect but it hopes that a defeat of SB 1070 in court will help galvanize broader political change.

For example, the passage of Proposition 187 marked a major turning point in the politicization of California’s Latino electorate. More than half of the 39 percent of Latinos on the electoral rolls in 2000 said they registered to vote after the ballot initiative passed, according to a survey by the Field Research Corp., a California public opinion research firm.

Opponents of SB 1070 hope the controversy surrounding the law could eventually have the same effect in Arizona.

"If you win in narrow doctrinal theory but you don't change hearts and minds, if you don't change the contours of the debate, you potentially could have a pyrrhic victory," Newman said. "You could always write another statute ... unless you change the political motivation that caused the rights violation in the first place."

To Saenz, California's history provides an example of how immigrant rights activists can change political motivation by showing that laws like Proposition 187 and SB 1070 alienate Latino voters. "Really, in the long term, the solution will be what it was in California," Saenz said. Given time, "the community will change and express its views."

Evan Granowitz attends to clients’ concerns on various facets of civil litigation. Visit this Facebook page for more information about the industry.

REPOST: Language like 'illegal immigrant' seen as a challenge during immigration debate

This CNN.com  article reports that some immigration debate activists believe that using the word 'illegal' to define people can dehumanize them.
 

Image Source: edition.cnn.com

(CNN) -- There's the N-word and the F-word: euphemisms for offensive terms many know but most of us would never consider using in polite company. Now, there's another word activists are hoping to banish from public discussion: "illegal," as in "illegal immigrant." So far, the campaign to "Drop the I-Word" has had limited success, but that could change with immigration overhaul high on the president's to-do list and with both sides plotting strategies and how to get their point across.

Opponents of the term "illegal immigrant" find various things wrong with it: They say it's technically wrong, offensive and is used to apply to people who may not even want to stay in the United States permanently, so they're not true immigrants. The term is an oxymoron, said Jonathan Rosa, an assistant professor of linguistic anthropology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

"It isn't a legal concept, which is why you don't hear judges and lawyers using this terminology in the law. The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act defines immigrants as people who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence," said Rosa. "There's no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant,' because if you are an immigrant, you're already legal."

Opinion: Why 'illegal immigrant' is a slur

But the issue is much more than grammatical. As in all arguments, the very words we choose can have an impact. Think of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in the debate over abortion, or how people who once called for "gun control" now favor "gun violence prevention."

Journalist turned immigrant activist Jose Antonio Vargas, a supporter of the Drop the I-Word campaign, argues that using the term "illegal immigrant" to describe people is a racially charged tactic that skews the immigration debate and fuels hate and violence.

Vargas, who was sent from the Philippines as a child to join his grandparents in California, said at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration how he felt when he was called "illegal." "I am the only one in my extended family of 25 Americans who is undocumented," he said. "When you inaccurately call me 'illegal,' you're not only dehumanizing me, you're offending them. No human being is illegal."

Vargas, who "came out" as an undocumented immigrant in a June 2011 essay in The New York Times Magazine, helped support the Drop the I-Word campaign to eliminate what it calls a "dehumanizing slur" from general use.

The argument is that the word "illegal" becomes dehumanizing when it brands an entire person, rather than an action they have taken. Opponents prefer a more specific word like "undocumented" be applied if it's needed at all.

CNN contributor Charles Garcia summed up his view in a column last year: "In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals." "By becoming judge, jury and executioner, you dehumanize the individual and generate animosity toward them," Garcia wrote for CNN.

There isn't a clear partisan divide on this. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who supports updating immigration laws, tends to use the word "undocumented." But his Democratic colleague Sen. Chuck Schumer, who with Rubio and six others have authored new immigration legislation plans, called undocumented immigrants "illegals" on a recent appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Senator Schumer, even Senator Marco Rubio is using 'undocumented' these days. Get with the program," Latino Rebels posted on their site, "and let us know when you issue your statement explaining your insensitivity."

"There is certainly a more widespread awareness that terminology is contentious and part of the overall political battle for immigration reform," said Lina Newton, Ph.D., associate professor of political science at Hunter College and author of "Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform."

Newton said Rubio's use of "undocumented" instead of "illegal" was a way to distinguish himself and part ways with conservative Republicans on the subject. "Regardless of where editors and reporters stand, public officials stand, I would say that people that are aware that these terms, like "illegals," "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented," are politically laden," Newton said. "How you use them will send a strong signal about where you stand politically on the issue."

That was widely seen to be the case with Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. He talked of "illegals" and promoting "self-deportation" in a way that was seen as off-putting to Latino voters, who favored President Obama over Romney by 71% to 27%.

Of course, undocumented immigrants cannot vote, but many have close ties with Latino citizens, the Pew Research Hispanic Center found, who see deportation and rights for people brought to this country as children as a personal issue.

But there isn't agreement among all Latinos.

Ruben Navarrette, a contributor to CNN.com who writes frequently on immigration and issues affecting Latinos, vouched for the use of the "illegal" terminology. "Immigration law is based in civil law, and that's why those who break it get deported and not imprisoned," he wrote, "But these people are still lawbreakers, and -- by definition -- illegal immigrants."

"The phrase is accurate. It's the shoe that fits. It's reality. And, as is often the case with reality, it's hard for some people to accept." There are certainly many who refuse to accept the term "illegal," and who are fighting it. It's not only unfair, it can be dangerous if it creates a racial stereotype that all Hispanics in the United States are viewed as "illegal" or lesser, the advocates behind Drop the I-Word say. FBI statistics show hate crimes against Latinos made up 66% of the violence based on ethnicity in 2010, up from 45% in 2009. Marcelo Lucero, a 37-year-old Ecuadoran immigrant, became a victim of such a hate crime in 2008 when he was stabbed to death on Long Island by a group of teens who were quoted as saying, "Let's go find some Mexicans to f--- up."

Words matter and can help to form opinions. A national survey of non-Latinos last year by Latino Decisions and the National Hispanic Media Coalition found far more negative views of Latinos when they were described as "illegal" than when the "undocumented" label was applied. And that explains why campaigns like Drop the I-Word target mass-media organizations that speak to millions of people. And why they're celebrating this week after The Associated Press, a news agency that supplies stories to newspapers, websites and organizations around the world, announced it is changing its policy.

The AP had considered "illegal immigrant" the best way to describe someone in a country without permission, but rewrote its stylebook in what it said was a broader effort to cut out labels. It will now tell users that " 'illegal' should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally."

The New York Times, the other main focus of Drop the I-Word advocates, is also reconsidering its language.

Other media outlets, including CNN, NBC News, The Huffington Post, ABC News/Univision, and Fox News Latino, already have a different lexicon.

CNN prefers the term "undocumented immigrant" when referring to an individual. The network doesn't use the terms "illegal" or "illegals" as nouns but considers it fine to use the term "illegal immigration" to discuss the issue.

Whether or not language in this instance will lead to social change, of course, remains to be seen. One advocacy group, Americans for Legal Immigration, said it would "compensate" for the AP's change by now using "illegal invaders" instead of "illegal immigrants" in its releases -- an indication perhaps that the issue of immigration remains contentious in the United States, the world's top destination for immigrants and where 13% of us were born outside the country.

Berkeley graduate Evan Granowitz is recognized as one of the youngest and most reputable civil litigators in Southern California. Follow this Twitter page for more updates on civil cases.

REPOST: FBI will try to rebuild Boston bombs

US law enforcement sources told CNN news the materials used in the Boston bombing were made from pressure cookers hidden in backpacks. Read the article below:  

(CNN) -- Investigators said Tuesday they'll attempt to reconstruct the bombs that turned the Boston Marathon's finish line into a bloody nightmare and asked the public for help finding who planted them.

Federal law enforcement sources told CNN the devices were made from pressure cookers and hidden in backpacks.

At a news conference Tuesday evening, the FBI agent leading the search said fragments of nails, BBs and scraps of black nylon -- possibly from a backpack -- are being handed over to the bureau's laboratory "for a complete and thorough analysis."

Rick DesLauriers, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Boston office, also asked people to report anyone who talked about targeting Monday's race or showed interest in explosives. He urged anyone who might have heard the sounds of explosions in remote areas -- possibly by someone testing a bomb -- or saw someone carrying "an unusually heavy, dark-colored bag" around Monday to come forward.

"Someone knows who did this," DesLauriers said. "Cooperation from the community will play a crucial role in this investigation."

The U.S. government has warned federal agencies in the past that pressure cookers -- airtight pots used to quickly cook or preserve foods -- have been packed with explosives and shrapnel and detonated with blasting camps. A law enforcement official said Monday's bombs were likely detonated by timers.

The pieces recovered so far suggest the devices, which were identical, could carry 6 liters of liquid apiece, a Boston law enforcement source said. The parts found include a partial circuit board, which would be used to detonate a device.

"Boston will overcome," mayor vows

Pressure cooker bombs can be "very effective," terrorism expert Jeff Beatty told CNN. Taliban and al Qaeda militants "use them to make their IEDs," he said.

"That doesn't mean it was the Taliban -- other people can read about this," said Beatty, who served in the FBI, CIA and the military's Delta Force.

But there has been no claim of responsibility, DesLauriers said: "The range of suspects and motives remains wide open." And so far, investigators have found no foreign or al Qaeda connection to the bombings, a U.S. official told CNN.

In Washington, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that some of the facts suggest the carnage had its roots in American soil.

"There are a lot of things that are surrounding this that would give an indication that it may have been a domestic terrorist, but that just can't be assumed," Chambliss said.

Napolitano: No signs of 'broad plot'

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the bombings don't appear to be harbingers of "a broader plot." But she urged Americans "to remain vigilant and immediately report any signs of suspicious activity to local law enforcement officials."

And members of Congress who were briefed by Obama administration officials on told reporters that the field of possible suspects remains wide open.

"We really don't know if it's a foreign or domestic threat," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Commitee. "We don't know whether this was a homegrown terrorist or part of a wider conspiracy."

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper held closed-door talks with the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. Chambliss,R-Georgia, told reporters afterward that "there's not a whole lot of update to give."

What we know about the bombings so far

"This is a very fluid investigation. The FBI's in the lead, and I personally know the special agent in charge. He's one of the best," Chambliss said.

Late Monday, authorities searched the apartment of a young Saudi man who was among the wounded at the race. He was found to have no connection to the attack.

"He was just at the wrong place at the wrong time," the U.S. official said.

A Saudi woman, a medical student who was also injured in the blast, has also been interviewed by investigators, according to a law enforcement source.

Boston's 'most complex crime scene' ever

Investigators are combing through shreds of evidence from what Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis called "the most complex crime scene that we've dealt with in the history of our department." The cordoned off area has been reduced from 15 blocks to 12 and will be reduced further in coming days, he said.

Even the smallest bits of debris could help indicate the bombs' "signature," said a federal law enforcement official who works in the intelligence community.

The explosives themselves were small, and initial tests showed no C-4 or other high-grade explosive material -- suggesting the packages used in the attack were crude devices, a federal law enforcement official in the intelligence community said.

How you can help

Based on the bombs' effects, the devices could have been small enough to be concealed in small bags or boxes, a law enforcement official said. The smoke was consistent with a "low-velocity improvised explosive mixture, perhaps flash powder or sugar chlorate mixture," the official said.

Two photos obtained by CNN affiliate WHDH might raise more questions. The first shows a light-colored bag sitting on the ground next to a mailbox. The second -- of the same spot -- shows a blast seemingly where that bag sat, with the mailbox still upright. Investigators have not commented on these photos, which WHDH reports it has shared with authorities.

Parts of the explosive devices that authorities have recovered will be analyzed at an FBI facility in Quantico, Virginia. One aim is to better understand how they worked; another is to look for 

"identification clues" such as fingerprints, DNA or serial numbers to help track who planted them, the Boston law enforcement source said.

Authorities haven't given any timetable as to when they expect significantly new details. But the FBI's DesLauriers vowed Tuesday that the more than 1,000 law enforcement officers from more than 30 agencies will get results, even if they have to go "to the ends of the Earth" to get them.

"Our mission is clear: to bring to justice those responsible," the FBI official said. "The American public wants answers. The citizens of the city of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts want and deserve answers."

Videos to be examined

Authorities have begun to search through huge amounts of video and images from surveillance cameras in the area near the attack. So far, no footage has been spotted showing someone placing the bombs, a law enforcement source said.

Authorities have asked anyone with images from any part of the marathon to share them with police.

"People don't know that they were witnesses -- that they might actually have evidence in their phones or in their cameras," Juliette Kayyem, President Obama's former assistant secretary for homeland security, said on CNN's "Starting Point."

Davis vowed authorities will sift "through every frame of every video."

The FBI is likely issuing subpoenas for records from cell towers in the area to isolate and trace calls from around Copley Square at the time of the blasts, according to a federal law enforcement official.

Doctors believe bombs contained sharp objects

Two doctors overseeing treatment of the injured believe the explosive devices contained nails or similar objects.

Many patients have severe wounds "related to the blast effect of the bomb as well as small metallic fragments that entered their body," including "pellets" and "nail-like objects," said Dr. George Velmahos, head of trauma care at Massachusetts General Hospital.

A variety of sharp objects were found inside the patients' bodies, he said, adding that the bombs probably contained multiple metallic fragments.

Asked whether what was found in the patients' bodies could have come from nearby objects that exploded in the blast, Velmahos said he believes the materials were likely part of the explosive devices.

Doctors remove ball bearings from victims

Ron Walls, chair of emergency medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital, said most patients there were wounded by "ordinary debris." But three were injured by "perfectly round objects" that were "very uniform, consistent, metallic," he said. And another patient had more than 12 carpenter-type nails.

"There is no question some of these objects were implanted in the device for the purpose of being exploded forward," Wall said.

No unexploded bombs

Suspicious packages that were detonated out of precaution after the bombings turned out not to be explosive devices after all.

After the blasts Monday, some officials reported that explosive devices that failed to go off were found.

But investigators said Tuesday the only bombs were the two that exploded at the marathon.

The intelligence community is poring through all threat reporting for any clues, U.S. counterterrorism officials told CNN.

That includes any claims made on jihadist websites. Nothing is being dismissed this early on, the officials said.

A law enforcement official in Boston said investigators "have a number of active leads and some good early progress in the forensics analysis."

There were no credible threats ahead of the race, a state government official said.

Boston officials who worked quickly Monday to clear the crime scene and divert thousands of runners half a mile away should get an award, said Kayyem, who also served as homeland security adviser to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

The move minimized chaos and "preserved the crime scene, which is going to be key for the FBI investigation. Those are lessons learned out of 9/11."

Open events are hard to secure, Kayyem said. "People say, 'Oh, how could this happen again?...' The better way to look at it, I think, is: Did we respond better? I think the answer is yes."

Atty. Evan Granowitz specializes on class action litigation and insurance coverage, among others. Visit this Facebook page to know more of his practice.

The dangers of always-on DRM

Since the coming of digital media, protecting the digital content and devices of publishers, creators, manufacturers, musicians, and other copyright holders has always been a problem because of piracy. That is why big companies the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, and Sony use digital rights management (DRM) to limit the use and distribution of their content.

Image Source: giantbomb.com

However, many are against DRM—particularly always-on DRM, which requires the content user to always be connected to the Internet as it keeps checking whether the content is being used as intended by the content provider. A lot of people believe that always-on DRM technologies only make the lives of content users more difficult, especially when they lose access to their content—which they paid for with their hard-earned money—the moment they go offline. In addition, it is well known that servers usually go offline after a number of years, especially for video games. And when they do, users who legally paid for content will no longer have access to it.

Image Source: defectivebydesign.org

Since DRM gives content providers leverage over almost anyone, including makers of playback devices, these content providers have the power to dictate what platform their content can run on or be played from, providing less choices to the consumer and effectively stifling competition.

Since always-on DRM only benefits the content producer, many consumers continue to complain about its use, arguing that they should have control over the product or service that they purchased legally.

Image Source: defectivebydesign.org

Evan Granowitz is a lawyer who is well-versed in the areas of unfair competition and class action litigations. Visit the Wolf Group LA website to learn more.

REPOST: “U.S. business groups worried by cybersecurity law aimed at China”

This Reuters article talks about the possible effects of the cybersecurity law aimed at China on US businesses.

(Reuters) - The U.S.-China Business Council on Monday criticized a new law aimed at thwarting cyber attacks by discouraging the Justice Department and several other government agencies from buying information technology systems from China.

"The national security of the United States is critical, but it must not be used as a means of protectionism," John Frisbie, the group's president, said in a letter urging leaders in the Senate and the House of Representatives to block similar measures in the future.

"Product security is a function of how a product is made, used, and maintained, rather than by whom or where it is made. Imposing a country-specific risk assessment creates a false sense of security if the goal is to improve our nation's cybersecurity," Frisbie said.

Congress, reflecting growing U.S. concern over Chinese cyber attacks, tucked a new review process for U.S. government technology purchases into a funding bill signed last month by President Barack Obama.

The measure requires the NASA space agency, the Justice and Commerce departments and the National Science Foundation to get approval from law enforcement officials when buying new information technology systems, with a particular focus on whether the systems are "produced, manufactured or assembled by one or more entities that are owned, directed or subsidized" by China.

Chinese officials have urged the United States to repeal the law, which they said uses Internet security as an excuse to take discriminatory steps against Chinese firms.

Fearing Chinese retaliation and copycat legislation in other countries that could harm U.S. interests, the Information Technology Industry Association, Business Software Alliance and other business groups also wrote to congressional leaders on Friday to urge reconsideration of the new law.

"Given the expedited manner in which this provision was enacted, we ask the Congress to review the security implications and competitive impact of this requirement, and consider a more constructive approach to this issue," they said.

The new provision also could inadvertently impede the U.S. government's ability to use the latest cutting-edge technology to protect itself, the groups argued.

"The requirement to assess every IT product purchase, absent any triggering threshold, will likely slow the federal acquisition process and put impacted federal agencies behind the security innovation curve," they said.  

Evan Granowitz, CA-based lawyer, is currently a member of Wolf Group LA’s roster of competent legal practitioners. This website provides more details about his connection with the firm.

REPOST: Privacy vs. prosecution: DNA testing gets high court review

The DNA Collection Act of Maryland allows police to collect genetic material without a warrant from those who have been arrested but not yet convicted of crimes. This CNN news article discusses the constitutionality of the act:  

Washington (CNN) -- On the back of Jayann Sepich's business card is her DNA profile, a reminder of the potential and pitfalls of technology at the heart of a privacy dispute now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue is the constitutionality of a state genetic testing law. Maryland's DNA Collection Act permits police to collect genetic material without a warrant from those who have been arrested but not yet convicted of crimes. Some states allow testing for certain misdemeanors too, including sex-based offenses.

Sepich founded the group DNASaves.org after the murder of her 22-year-old daughter, a shocking crime unrelated to the current high court appeal. Her killer was not identified until three years later, after the man was convicted of a separate armed burglary. She now supports expanding databases to included arrested criminal suspects.

"My daughter gave up her most basic constitutional right -- the right to live," she told CNN. "There are so many heinous criminals that are being arrested, and not being identified as having committed these [other] crimes. They are being released and they re-offend. ... And we need to stop them earlier because they re-offend and they kill and they rape."

Fourth Amendment test

But privacy advocates warn a final ruling in the state's favor could open the gates to greater government use of one's biological makeup for a variety of non-judicial purposes.

"The Constitution says police must have some level of suspicion, and we know that intuitively," said Erin Murphy, a New York University law professor and national expert on forensics evidence. "If someone is arrested for drug possession, driving under the influence, writing a bad check, for jaywalking -- they don't have all their private information exposed to the police. The police have to have suspicion if they then want to then go search the individual" by taking the DNA sample.

The current case involves a Maryland man convicted of a 2003 rape in Wicomico County in the state's Eastern Shore region. Alonzo King Jr. had been arrested four years ago on an unrelated assault charge, and a biological sample was automatically obtained at that time. That sample was linked to the earlier sexual assault.

King moved to suppress that evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, but was ultimately convicted of the first-degree rape offense.

Both King and his legal team turned down CNN's request for an interview.

A divided Maryland Court of Appeals later agreed with King, saying suspects under arrest enjoy a higher level of privacy than a convicted felon, outweighing the state's law enforcement interests. That court also said obtaining King's DNA immediately after arrest was not necessary in identifying him, and that the process was more personally invasive than standard fingerprinting.

State officials then asked the justices to intervene, saying the state court ruling "has resulted in the loss of a valuable crime-fighting tool relied upon by Maryland." They said that from a law enforcement and forensic perspective, there is no difference between fingerprinting and collecting "biometric information."

Chief Justice John Roberts last July allowed the Maryland law to stay in effect until a full appeal could be filed. The high court then agreed to decide the constitutional issues. Roberts at the time hinted his tentative support.

  

Oral arguments on Tuesday

"Collecting DNA from individuals arrested for violent felonies provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from the general population," Roberts wrote. "Crimes for which DNA evidence is implicated tend to be serious, and serious crimes cause serious injuries. That Maryland may not employ a duly enacted statute to help prevent these injuries constitutes irreparable harm."

The chief justice said last summer there was a "fair prospect" the Supreme Court would ultimately find in favor of the state on the search and seizure questions. Oral arguments will now be held Tuesday, with a ruling expected by June.

A 1994 federal law created a national database in which local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies can compare and share information on DNA matches from convicted felons, but courts have been at odds on just when such samples can be collected and the information distributed.

"The (state court) decision below has direct effects beyond Maryland: Because the DNA samples Maryland collects may otherwise be eligible for the FBI's national DNA database, the decision renders the database less effective for other states and the federal government," Roberts wrote.

The state DNA collection law in Maryland is set to expire at the end of the year, but the justices are likely to decide its constitutionality before then.

Sepich recalls the day a decade ago when she learned her daughter had not returned from a party the night before.

Katie's body was found later that day in a Las Cruces city dump. She had been raped, strangled to death, and her body set afire. One of the graduate student's last acts was to preserve her killer's identity. Blood and skin of the killer was under her fingernails, as she scratched the man while fighting back from the attack.

That genetic profile was placed in a nationwide database known as CODIS. Three months after the murder, Gabriel Avila was arrested for a home break-in, but no DNA was taken. The Mexican national made bail and fled. Sepich says he was allowed to roam the streets for three years before his recapture and 2006 conviction prompted an automatic DNA swab.

Sepich and her family meantime tried to make sense of the murder and turn it into something positive, in Katie's memory.

"It was at that time I learned that DNA was not used like fingerprints. It wasn't taken upon felony arrest," said Sepich. "And I was so convinced of its effectiveness. That's when our family started our quest to see DNA taken upon arrest in all 50 states. Our home state of New Mexico did that in 2006 and we've just continued to work to see other states passed."

Just 11 months after Katie's Law was signed in New Mexico, Avila's genetic markers were linked to Katie's murder. He then pleaded guilty and was given 69 years behind bars. The prosecutor in that case is now New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican.

"What [this law] it means to me is that there are so many other mothers that will not bury their daughters." said Sepich. "That will have the joy of having them for the rest of their lives. And I know that sounds very emotional, but people say that if we could just prevent this from happening to one other person, but there's so much truth in that."

DNA samples taken during arrest

A legally complex case begins simply. Upon arrest, a criminal suspect-- along with a mugshot and fingerprints-- opens his or her mouth and a cotton swab takes a sample from the cheek. It is placed in a vial, given a number, and stored. No consent or warrant is initially required.

Twenty-six states and the federal government allow genetic swabs to be taken after a felony arrest. Each has different procedures, but in all cases, only a profile is created -- about 13 individual markers of some three-billion -- are isolated from a suspect's DNA.

That selective information does not reveal the full genetic makeup of a person, and officials stress, and nothing is shared with any other public or private party, including any medical diagnostics. The Obama administration has signaled its support.

Law enforcement says it works and point to Chester Turner, a Los Angeles man who was arrested 21 times over the years for non-violent offenses, but never had a DNA sample taken. But after a rape conviction, he was revealed to be a serial killer, linked to at least 10 unsolved murders of women, and the rapes of other victims. He was given the death penalty in 2007.

In a brief filed by 49 states supporting Maryland, officials also say the information is secure, and retested when an initial "hit" is identified. After a warrant is issued for probable cause, another fresh DNA sample is taken and it that test that is used to ultimately prosecute in court. Each initial test costs about $30.

Every Monday those markers are compared with CODIS samples newly submitted by states.

But there are also wide differences in how the DNA taken after arrest is used.

"In Maryland, when police arrest you, they can take but cannot test that swab, until there is probable cause for the arrest, meaning that the judge says this is a legitimate, legal arrest. In other states, that's not the case," said Murphy, noting California allows testing immediately after arrest.

"And another feature that's different in the Maryland law than some laws across other states, is that if the judge finds that there has been no support for the arrest, the state has to immediately destroy all samples and purge all records from its database," Murphy said.

Other states require the person who was arrested to petition the court directly, often a time-consuming and expensive process.

Privacy advocates weigh in

Privacy advocates also say blanket collection of everyone arrested for a felony -- even non-violent ones -- is not effective as a crime-fighting tool. Murphy says police typically only collect DNA from murders and sex-based crime scenes like rape, and that expanding the evidence chain would be a better use of resources, than a sweeping collection upon arrest. Some states acknowledge boxes of DNA swabs have gone untested.

"The use of DNA is expanding rapidly so many states now engage in a process called familial searching, to collect information about the possible profiles of an individual's family members," said Murphy. "It's also possible to take the DNA profile and gleam from that inference about a person's race or ethnicity. Those are types of private information that a fingerprint never could expose."

King's attorney Kannon Shanmugam told the high court, "There are over 12 million arrests in the United States every year. Virtually all of the arguments advanced by [Maryland] and the United States would justify the blanket collection and retention of DNA from ordinary citizens."

And civil liberties groups worry inadequate testing by overwhelmed lab technicians can lead to errors, like the one that sent Dwayne Jackson to prison for armed robbery. It was three years before a lab mistake was noticed, and the Nevada man was freed as an innocent man.

Deoxyribonucleic acid is a coded molecule providing a genetic map for the development of all known living organisms. By 2000 all 50 states and the federal government required DNA collection from convicted offenders, and was soon expanded by many jurisdiction to criminal arrests.

The number of offender profiles in federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is now about 10 million, with more than a million profiles of people who have been arrested.

Congress in December passed the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, a grant program to help states pay for the expanded system. Jayann Sepich personally lobbied lawmakers for months to ensure passage.

President Barack Obama signed the bill last month, saying it was the right thing to do.

"In my home state of New Mexico we've had 406 cases solved since we started taking arrestee DNA January 1, 2007," said Sepich. "And that's in a state with a population of only two million people."

The first swab taken of an arrested person an hour after the law took effect produced a "hit" on an unsolved double murder.

Sepich's message is simple. "This saves lives," she said, holding a picture of her daughter. As a crime victim, "We know what it's like, and we don't ever want anyone else to ever know."

 
Evan Granowitz of CA is one of the lawyers of Wolf Group LA. This website provides details about his practice.