Maryland v. King
E390986
Maryland v. King is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of collecting DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious offenses under the Fourth Amendment.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Maryland DNA Collection Act | 1 |
| Maryland v. King canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3822017 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Maryland v. King Context triple: [October Term 2012, includesCase, Maryland v. King]
-
A.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
B.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
C.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
D.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
E.
Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by striking down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal preclearance for changes to their voting laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Maryland v. King Target entity description: Maryland v. King is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of collecting DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious offenses under the Fourth Amendment.
-
A.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
B.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
C.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
D.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
E.
Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by striking down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal preclearance for changes to their voting laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2012-02-26 ⓘ |
| citation |
133 S. Ct. 1958
ⓘ
186 L. Ed. 2d 1 ⓘ 569 U.S. 435 ⓘ |
| citationSignal | overruled contrary state court decisions limiting DNA collection from arrestees ⓘ |
| comparedArresteeDNATo | DNA profiles in unsolved crime databases ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedIn | October Term 2012 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-06-03 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| dissentReasoning | Routine DNA collection from arrestees is an unreasonable search aimed at investigating unrelated crimes. ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 12-207 ⓘ |
| holding | The Fourth Amendment permits the collection and analysis of a DNA sample from persons arrested, but not yet convicted, for serious offenses supported by probable cause. ⓘ |
| impact | Expanded permissible use of DNA collection at booking for serious offenses in the United States ⓘ |
| issue | Whether the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect DNA from arrestees without a warrant. ⓘ |
| joinedDissent |
Elena Kagan
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalRule | DNA swabbing of an arrestee’s cheek is a reasonable search incident to arrest for a serious offense. ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| originatingCourt |
Maryland Court of Appeals
ⓘ
linked to:
Supreme Court of Maryland
|
| petitioner |
State of Maryland
ⓘ
linked to:
Maryland
|
| precedentFor | subsequent cases on biometric identification of arrestees ⓘ |
| reasoning |
DNA collection is analogous to fingerprinting and photographing during booking.
ⓘ
Government interest in accurate identification and solving past crimes outweighs minimal intrusion of cheek swab. ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
DNA collection from arrestees
ⓘ
law enforcement identification procedures ⓘ privacy rights ⓘ |
| respondent | Alonzo Jay King Jr. ⓘ |
| result | Maryland DNA Collection Act upheld as applied to serious offense arrestees ⓘ |
| reversed |
Maryland Court of Appeals
ⓘ
linked to:
Supreme Court of Maryland
|
| searchType | buccal swab DNA collection ⓘ |
| standardApplied | reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment ⓘ |
| stateStatuteAtIssue |
Maryland DNA Collection Act
ⓘ
linked to:
Maryland v. King
|
| vote | 5-4 decision ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Maryland v. King Description of subject: Maryland v. King is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of collecting DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious offenses under the Fourth Amendment.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Maryland v. King