United States v. Kincade
US Court of Appeals Case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about United States v. Kincade?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), is a case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealing with the constitutionality of collecting and retaining DNA from parolees.[1]
This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (April 2013) |
Quick Facts United States v. Kincade, Court ...
United States v. Kincade | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Full case name | United States v. Kincade |
Argued | March 23, 2004 |
Decided | August 18, 2004 |
Citation(s) | 379 F.3d 813 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Mary M. Schroeder, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Michael Daly Hawkins, Barry G. Silverman, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ronald M. Gould, Richard R. Clifton, Consuelo María Callahan (en banc) |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Scannlain, joined by Schroeder, Silverman, Clifton, Callahan |
Concurrence | Gould |
Dissent | Reinhardt, joined by Pregerson, Kozinski, Wardlaw |
Dissent | Kozinski |
Dissent | Hawkins |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV; DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 |
Close