United States v. Kriesel, Jr., No. 11-30197 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty to a drug conspiracy charge and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. One condition of his supervised release required him to provide a blood sample for analysis of his DNA, and inclusion of his DNA profile into the government's CODIS database. After completing his term of supervised release, defendant sought the return of his blood sample under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The court concluded that the district court correctly held that defendant was seeking the return of "property" and defendant was "aggrieved" under Rule 41; rejected the government's contention that defendant lacked standing; and affirmed the district court's holding that the use of the blood samples to ensure the accuracy of DNA identification was a valid reason to retain the sample.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s order on remand denying a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for return of a blood sample provided to the government for analysis of the defendant’s DNA as a condition of his now-completed supervised release. Rejecting the government’s contention that the defendant lacks standing, the panel agreed with the district court that the defendant is seeking the return of “property” and that defendant was “aggrieved” within the meaning of Rule 41. The panel agreed with the district court that the government carried its burden of showing the samples were retained for a reasonable use – to ensure that the matches to forensic evidence, identified through the government’s Combined DNA Index System database searches, are accurate. The panel concluded that the government’s continued retention of the defendant’s blood sample is reasonable under the circumstances presented on this record, notwithstanding that he has completed the term of supervised release. Dissenting, Judge Reinhardt wrote that the majority’s opinion illustrates the failure of today’s judiciary to stand up Thi to clear abuse of governmental authority as well as its unwillingness to protect the fundamental right to privacy of all Americans.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.