Court Finds DNA Collection Does Not
Violate Inmates' Religious Rights
By: Gerri L Elder
A federal
appeals court in Washington, D.C. ruled that the Bureau of Prisons'
practice of obtaining DNA samples from convicted felons does not infringe on
the inmates' religious freedom.
The
Legal Times reported that inmate Russell Kaemmerling, who is serving time at a federal prison in Texas for conspiring to commit wire fraud, brought the
unusual legal challenge.
Kaemmerling sued to stop the Bureau of Prisons from
collecting his DNA. His lawyers argued
that Kaemmerling believes the DNA collection process was a defilement of
"God's temple" and "tantamount to laying the foundation for
the rise of the anti-Christ."
Federal law required the Bureau of Prisons to collect DNA
samples from inmates. The samples
are generally use a bucal swab to collect saliva or a blood
test. The Justice Department
recently expanded the DNA collection requirements to include people arrested in
connection with federal crimes and most immigrants detained by federal
authorities.
Kaemmerling is an evangelical Christian. The basis of his lawsuit was collection of a
DNA sample could result in his unwilling participation in activities prohibited
by his religion, such as cloning experiments and stem cell research.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that
Kaemmerling failed to prove collection of his DNA would substantially burden
his exercise of religion.
The Court's opinion, written by Chief Judge David Sentelle
noted, "The government's extraction, analysis, and storage of
Kaemmerling's DNA information does not call for Kaemmerling to modify his
religious behavior in any way -- it involves no action or forbearance on his
part, nor does it otherwise interfere with any religious act in which he
engages."
Judge Karen Henderson and Judge Brett Kavanaugh joined
Sentelle on the panel. In addition to
considering the issue of religious freedom, the judges also briefly discussed
Kaemmerling's argument that the DNA collection process violated his Fifth
Amendment rights to equal protection and against self-incrimination and his
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They found that DNA collection caused no
violation of Kaemmerling's civil rights.
The panel reversed the lower court's ruling that Kaemmerling
had failed to exhaust the administrative process before filing his
complaint. There are actually no
administrative remedies that Kaemmerling could pursue because DNA
collection of prisoners is required by federal law. The Bureau of Prisons had no authority to
address his objection to the DNA Act.