P. v. Bracey
Filed 8/25/06 P. v. Bracey CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES HENRY BRACEY, Defendant and Appellant. | A111173 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC54373) |
This case involves DNA detective work.
In 2005, defendant Charles Henry Bracey pleaded no contest to a 1996 forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). Defendant contends that evidence linking him to the rape should have been suppressed because it was obtained from blood and saliva samples previously taken from him for DNA identification purposes, and the taking of the samples violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree and affirm because it is well settled that the taking of blood and saliva for DNA identification under California statutory law (Pen. Code, § 296 et seq.) does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
I. FACTS
The motion to suppress was submitted on stipulated facts. According to the written stipulation, two separate sets of blood and saliva samples were taken from defendant--one in 1998 and one in 2001.
1. On February 26, 1998, defendant was convicted of felony assault, â€
