Collection and Use of DNA Evidence:  I’m sometimes asked about when DNA is lawfully collected in one case, are we able to use it later in the investigation and prosecution of a second, unrelated case?  My response has always been; “I don’t know.  But let’s go ahead and do it until a court tells us otherwise.”  Well, the issue has finally been resolved in a new case issued by California’s Third District Court of Appeal; People v. Roberts (Aug. 20, 2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 64.  In this case, thirteen-year-old Jessica F.-H. was brutally stabbed to death in a Sacramento County park in 2012.  Although DNA was collected at the scene, her murder went unsolved for about a year.  Then, in 2013, defendant was arrested in an unrelated domestic violence case in what was stipulated to be a lawful arrest (i.e., no search and seizure issues).  Pursuant to Pen. Code § 296(a)(2)(C), defendant’s DNA was automatically collected during the booking process.  As a result, defendant’s DNA profile was uploaded into CODIS (i.e., “Combined DNA Index System”). The district attorney rejected the case for prosecution, however, on the grounds that it was not provable beyond a reasonable doubt.  Defendant’s DNA, which remained in the system despite the D.A. reject (which is the standard practice), was matched to the DNA collected at the scene of Jessica’s murder.  This led to defendant’s arrest, prosecution, and conviction for first degree murder.  On appeal, defendant argued that using his DNA, collected in one case but then used in the prosecution of a subsequent unrelated case, violated his federal (Fourth Amendment) and state constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and his state constitutional right to privacy.  The Third District Court of Appeal rejected defendant’s arguments.  Per the Court, once validly obtained DNA evidence is collected, it may be used in the investigation and prosecution of any other case. The situation was noted by the Court to be no different than taking fingerprints and photographs of someone arrested on probable cause. There was also no violation of defendant’s state constitutional right to privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § 13), but even if there was, the “Truth in Evidence” provisions of Proposition 8 precludes the suppression of any evidence.  Good case for the People.