United States Ninth Circuit

A decision revoking defendant's supervised release because he refused to proffer a blood sample, as required by the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (DNA Act) is affirmed where: 1) the DNA Act does not violate the Fourth Amendment; 2) the Act does not have an impermissibly retroactive effect on defendant; 3) the Act does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; 4) the compelled extraction of blood under the Act does not violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; and 5) the Act does not exceed the government's Commerce Clause power.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/14/2004
• Decided 01/12/2007
• Published 01/12/2007

Judges

• Before HARRY PREGERSON, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Steven F. Hubachek, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Carol C. Lam, United States Attorney (when brief was filed and argued), Karen P. Hewitt, United States Attorney (when decided), Mark R. Rehe, Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.