31. Audit Division, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Follow-Up Audit of the Terrorist Screening Center (2007), xiii, https://oig.justice.gov/reports/FBI/a0741/final.pdf (“individuals could present an immediate threat”); Terrorist Watchlist: Routinely Assessing Impacts of Agency Actions Since the December 25, 2009, Attempted Attack Could Help Inform Future Efforts, GAO-12-476 (2012), 15, www.gao.gov/assets/600/591312.pdf.
32. Amy B. Zegart, Eyes on Spies: Congress and the United States Intelligence Community (2011), 2; see also DeYoung, “Terror Database Has Quadrupled in Four Years,” supra note 17; Mark Hosenball, “Information-Sharing Guru Becomes Chief Leak Plugger,” Reuters, Dec. 2, 2010, http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2010/12/02/information-sharing-guru-becomes-chief-leak-plugger/.
33. Paul Ohm, “Probably Probable Cause: The Diminishing Importance of Justification Standards,” Minn. L. Rev. 95 (2010): 1548 (“entirely unregulated”); Murphy, “The Politics of Privacy in the Criminal Justice System,” supra note 14, at 495 (“comprehensive privacy laws” (quoting Paul M. Schwartz, “Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace,” Vand. L. Rev. 52 (1999): 1632)).
34. Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135, 136–37, 146, 155 (2009).
35. Id. at 153–54.
36. Stewart A. Baker, Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism (2010), 326, 332, 334.
37. Id. at 336; see also Murphy, “Databases, Doctrine, and Constitutional Criminal Procedure,” supra note 15, at 829.
38. Citron and Pasquale, “Network Accountability for the Domestic Intelligence Apparatus,” supra note 20, at 1470–74.
39. Alvaro M. Bedoya, “Big Data and the Underground Railroad,” Slate, Nov. 7, 2014, 10:10 a.m., www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/11/big_data_underground_railroad_history_says_unfettered_collection_of_data.html.
40. Douglas J. Sylvester and Sharon Lohr, “Counting on Confidentiality: Legal and Statistical Approaches to Federal Privacy Law After the USA PATRIOT Act,” Wis. L. Rev. 2005: 1043 (citing Lynette Clementson, “Homeland Security Given Data on Arab-Americans,” N.Y. Times, July 30, 2004, at A14).
41. Federal Support for State and Local Fusion Centers, supra note 19, at 5; Colo. Rev. State. § 24-33.5-1604(8) (2013), cited in Christopher Slobogin, “Panvasive Surveillance, Political Process Theory, and the Nondelegation Doctrine,” Geo. L.J. 102 (2014): 1766–67 (2014); Price, National Security and Local Police, supra note 20, at 3–4.
42. Federal Support for State and Local Fusion Centers, supra note 19, at 27, 85.
43. Id. at 1, 35, 38.
44. Id. at 1, 94.
45. German and Stanley, Fusion Center Update, supra note 22, at 7 (“one-way mirror”); Slobogin, “Panvasive Surveillance, Political Process Theory, and the Nondelegation Doctrine,” supra note 41, at 1750 (“throw a fit” [quoting Torin Monahan and Neal A. Palmer, “The Emerging Politics of DHS Fusion Centers,” Sec. Dialogue 40 (2009): 625]). German and Stanley, “What’s Wrong with Fusion Centers?,” supra note 21, at 9 (citing Adena Schulzberg, “MetaCarta Users Tap Unstructured Data for New Geographic Uses,” Directions Magazine, May 30, 2007, www.directionsmag.com/article/php?article_id=2478&trv=1 (“Wild West”).
46. Maryland DNA Collection Act, 2010 Maryland Code, §2-504.
47. Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1962, 1965–66 (2013) (quoting Dist. Att’y’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 55 (2009).
48. Id. at 1976; id. at 1980–90 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
49. Id. at 1985 (quoting Md. Code § 2-505(a)(2); Jean Marbella, “Supreme Court Will Review Md. DNA Law,” Balt. Sun, Nov. 9, 2012, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-09/news/bs-md-scotus-dna-20121109_1_violent-crime-or-burglary-dna-samples-jay-king-jr).
50. Haskell v. Brown, 677 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1191–92 (N.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d sub nom. Haskell v. Harris, 745 F.3d 1269 (9th. Cir. 2014); see also People v. Buza, 342 P.3d 415 (Cal. 2015); Haskell v. Harris, ACLU of Northern California (Dec. 13 2014), https://aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/haskell-v-harris.
51. See Christine Rosen, “Liberty, Privacy, and DNA Databases,” The New Atlantis, Spring 2003, at 43 (military); Susan Essoyan, “2 Marines Challenge Pentagon Order to Give DNA Samples: Defense Dept. Says Its Goal Is to Identify Bodies in Wartime. But Enlisted Men Tell Court Their Privacy Is Being Violated,” L.A. Times, Dec. 27, 1995, http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-27/news/mn-18238_1_dna-sample; Amato v. Dist. Att’y for Cape & Islands Dist., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 230, 231–34 (2011); Amy Anthony, “DBA Deal Reached in Christa Worthington Murder Case,” Cape Cod Times, May 6, 2014, www.capecodtimes.com/article/20140506/NEWS/405060325; D. H. Kaye and Michael E. Smith, “DNA Identification Databases: Legality, Legitimacy, and the Case for Population-Wide Coverage,” Wis. L. Rev. 2003: 435; People v. Thomas, 200 Cal. App. 4th 338, 340 (2011); State v. Buckman, 613 N.W.3d 463, 474 (Neb. 2000).
52. Akhil Reed Amar, Op-Ed, “A Search for Justice in Our Genes,” N.Y. Times, May 8, 2002, www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/opinion/a-search-for-justice-in-our-genes.html; Rosen, “Liberty, Privacy, and DNA Databases,” supra note 51, at 44 (quoting Alec Jeffreys).
53. Kevin Lapp and Joy Radice, “A Better Balancing: Reconsidering Pre-Conviction DNA Extraction from Federal Arrestees,” N.C. L. Rev. Addendum 90 (2012): 163.
54. Erin Murphy, “Relative Doubt: Familial Searches of DNA Databases,” Mich. L. Rev. 109 (2010): 316, 321–23 (2010) (citing Gautam Naik, “To Sketch a Thief,” Wall St. J., Mar. 27, 2009, www.wsj.com/articles/SB123810863649052551); Jeffrey Rosen, “Genetic Surveillance for All?,” Slate, Mar. 17, 2009, 4:52 p.m., www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/03/genetic_surveillance_for_all.html; Rosen, “Liberty, Privacy, and DNA Databases,” supra note 51, at 41 (quoting Alec Jeffreys).
55. Kaye and Smith, “DNA Identification Databases,” supra note 51, at 436; “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the CODIS Program and National DNA Index System,” FBI, www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet; Nat’l Ctr. for Victims of Crime, Evidence Retention Laws: A State by State Comparison (2013), http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/dna-resource-center-documents/evidence-retention-check-chart-9-5.pdf.
56. See Murphy, “Relative Doubt,” supra note 54, at 293, 297–300, 314–15, 346 (“cloud of suspicion”); Ellen Nakashima, “From DNA of Family, a Tool to Make Arrests,” Wash. Post, Apr. 21, 2008, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002388.html; Rosen, “Genetic Surveillance for All?,” supra note 54.
57. Perhaps not that far away “[a]s genetic research … reveals increasing ties between genes and predisposition to violence and other antisocial behavior.” Rosen, “Genetic Surveillance for All?,” supra note 54.
58. Rosen, “Liberty, Privacy, and DNA Databases,” supra note 51, at 44 (Iceland); King, 133 S.Ct. at 1989 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
59. Matthew R. Durose, Alexia D. Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (2014), www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf; U.S. v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (Fletcher, J., dissenting) (citing U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History and Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (2004), 13, www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2004/200405_Recidivism_Criminal_History.pdf); William J. Sabol et al., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Offenders Returning to Federal Prison, 1986–97 (2000), 1, 3, http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/orfp97.pdf; Rosen, “Liberty, Privacy, and DNA Databases,” supra note 51, at 40 (quoting Benjamin Keehn).
60. Jeremiah Goulka, Carl Matthies, Emma Disley, and Paul Steinberg, RAND Center, Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England (2010), 8, 18, 20, www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR918.pdf.
61. Erin E. Murphy, Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA (2015), 65–67; Martin Kaste, “‘Great Pause’ Among Prosecutors as DNA Proves Fallible,” NPR, Oct. 9, 2015, 5:30 p.m., www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447202433/-great-pause-among-forensic-scientists-as-dna-proves-fallible.
62. Latif v. Holder, No. 3:10-CV-00750-BR, 2015 WL 1883890 (D. Or. Apr. 24, 2015); Mashal Interview, supra note 6.
63. Hina Shamsi, “The U.S. Government Is Putting Americans on Its No-Fly List on a Hunch,” Slate, Aug. 12, 2015, 4:19 p.m., www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/08/the_u_s_government_is_putting_americans_on_its_no_fly_list_on_a_hunch_and.html.
64. Spencer S. Hsu, “FBI Notifies Crime Labs of Errors Used in DNA Match Calculations Since 1999,” Wash. Post, May 29, 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-notifies-crime-labs-of-errors-used-in-dna-match-calculations-since-1999/2015/05/29/f04234fc-0591-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html; Louis Brandeis, Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It (1913), 92.
65. Mashal Interview, supra note 6.