Top Law Schools

Could the federal government pass a law pursuant to the commerce power requiring that states preserve DNA evidence for X amount of years?

I know that's brief, and I'm not expecting a long essay, but any thoughts would be appreciated.

My gut reaction is that preservation of DNA evidence really doesn't have anything to do with commerce, even under the broadest definitions of commerce, but it's been a long time since I took con law and I may just have a limited imagination. (I would think it would be much easier to make such a requirement a condition of receiving federal funds in support of investigating/prosecuting crime, but again, just a gut reaction.)

I'd say no. If you look at US v. Lopez:
1. DNA evidence, or the preservation of DNA evidence, is not a channel of interstate commerce.
2. "" does not involve protecting or regulating an instrumentality of interstate commerce.
3. "" does not have a substantial relationship to interstate commerce.

DNA does not involve a fungible good, like marijuana did in Gonzales v. Raich, that is part of an overall valid legislation. To the contrary, you don't get any more unique than DNA. And there is no reason why the federal government can alone effectively control DNA evidence/preservation like in Wickard v. Fillburn.

I think the only possible argument you could make is that both unsolved crimes and repeat offenders have an impact on interstate commerce, but its a pretty attenuated link that, in my view, brings it outside commerce clause. Like Anon said, there may be some other basis for it, but not the commerce clause.

What about the tools used to collect DNA evidence? those travel in commerce, thus DNA collection substantially relates to commerce?

Jchance wrote:What about the tools used to collect DNA evidence? those travel in commerce, thus DNA collection substantially relates to commerce?

Guns travel in commerce, but regulation prohibiting guns within school zones wasn't a valid application of commerce clause.