Lucas v. Director, Texas Department of Public Safety

Fifth Circuit

Lucas v. Director, Texas Department of Public Safety

95 F. App'x 100

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 2004

DocketNo. 03-50936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 F. App'x 100 (Lucas v. Director, Texas Department of Public Safety) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lucas v. Director, Texas Department of Public Safety, 95 F. App'x 100 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

Alan Quinn Lucas, Texas prisoner #363715, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil-rights suit. Lucas challenges the constitutionality of Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.148 and related sections, which require that certain inmates provide prison officials with blood samples for purposes of creating a DNA database.

Lucas’s argument that the district court should not have applied the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement to uphold the constitutionality of § 411.148 is without merit. The district court denied Lucas’s complaint based on this court’s decision in Velasquez v. Woods, 329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir.2003). In Velasquez, this court rejected the argument that § 411.148 violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. The [101]*101Velasquez decision was not based on the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement. Id.

Lucas’s argument that prison policies enforcing the collection of blood samples pursuant to § 411.148 are invalid under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), because they infringe on his constitutional rights and serve no penological objective is also without merit. Because the collection of a blood sample from an inmate for DNA analysis is a reasonable search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the Turner analysis is inapplicable.

Lucas makes no argument regarding the claims he raised in district court that the collection of his blood for DNA analysis violates his Eighth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He, therefore, has waived these arguments. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.1994).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

*

Alan Quinn Lucas, Texas prisoner #363715, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil-rights suit. Lucas challenges the constitutionality of Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.148 and related sections, which require that certain inmates provide prison officials with blood samples for purposes of creating a DNA database.

Lucas’s argument that the district court should not have applied the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement to uphold the constitutionality of § 411.148 is without merit. The district court denied Lucas’s complaint based on this court’s decision in Velasquez v. Woods, 329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir.2003). In Velasquez, this court rejected the argument that § 411.148 violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. The [101]*101Velasquez decision was not based on the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement. Id.

Lucas’s argument that prison policies enforcing the collection of blood samples pursuant to § 411.148 are invalid under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), because they infringe on his constitutional rights and serve no penological objective is also without merit. Because the collection of a blood sample from an inmate for DNA analysis is a reasonable search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the Turner analysis is inapplicable.

Lucas makes no argument regarding the claims he raised in district court that the collection of his blood for DNA analysis violates his Eighth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He, therefore, has waived these arguments. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.1994).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F. App'x 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-director-texas-department-of-public-safety-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack