Filed Date: Dec. 7, 2004
Closed Date: 2006
Clearinghouse coding complete
In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 69, also known the California DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act. The law required, in part, that any person who is arrested or charged with a felony submit to a DNA test, regardless of whether the arrest was valid or legal, and also that any person who had previously been convicted of a felony submit to a DNA test.
Just over a month after the passage of the law, on December 7, 2004, a group of former arrestees and former prisoners, as well as two advocacy groups, brought this class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the California attorney general, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by various ACLU chapters and private counsel, asked the court for both declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the law violated the plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Within two months, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. On April 22, 2005, the District Court (Judge Fern Smith) granted the motion to dismiss (365 F.Supp.2d 1119). She held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and ripeness because the state of California had not yet implemented a program for the collection of DNA.
Summary Authors
Jonathan Forman (7/9/2013)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5714830/parties/weber-v-lockyer/
Brown, Donald W. (California)
Budd, Jordan C. (California)
Crosby, Margaret C. (California)
Eliasberg, Peter J. (California)
Allen, Dale L. Jr. (California)
Crosby, Margaret C. (California)
Eliasberg, Peter J. (California)
Garcia, Ricardo D. (California)
Harris, Maya Horton (New Jersey)
Mass, Julia Harumi (California)
Patchen, Jonathan Allen (California)
Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)
Schwartz, Jeffrey Dean (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5714830/weber-v-lockyer/
Last updated Aug. 19, 2025, 7:05 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 7, 2004
Closing Date: 2006
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Former arrestees, former inmates and two organizations
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief: