Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Why so contrived?: fourth amendment balancing, per se rules, and DNA database after Maryland V. King / by David H. Kaye.

By:

Kaye, David H

Material type:

Continuing resourceSeries: The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | ; Vol. 104, Number 3Publication details: --Illinois: Northwestern University Press, c 2014.Description: pages 535-598ISSN:

00914169

Subject(s):

Criminal law

DDC classification:

BPer.363 J84

Summary: In Maryland V. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of routine collection and storage of DNA samples and profiles from arrestees.

Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings
Item type	Home library	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Bansalan Periodicals	UM Bansalan College LIC	BPer.363 J84 (Browse shelf(Opens below))	Not For Loan

In Maryland V. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of routine collection and storage of DNA samples and profiles from arrestees.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.