Doe v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Jane Doe alleged that the San Francisco Police Department promised to use a DNA sample she provided only to investigate her sexual assault. According to the second amended complaint, the department later used the sample to investigate other crimes, including a burglary for which Doe was charged.

Doe also alleged that individual defendants knew about or accepted this practice. The allegations identified Mark Powell, the director of the department’s crime laboratory; William Scott, the chief of police; Sylvia Lange, the officer who used Doe’s DNA to obtain an arrest warrant; and Kelley Fracchia, the criminalist who matched Doe’s DNA to DNA found at the 2021 burglary scene.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Doe plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation. It explained that the department’s alleged use of her DNA exceeded the scope of the consent she gave. The court cited precedent stating that a person may limit the scope of a search to which she consents.

The court also found that Doe plausibly alleged the individual defendants knew about and accepted the allegedly unconstitutional conduct. At this stage, the court concluded that qualified immunity did not apply. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from certain claims for damages, but the court found that Doe had alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

The court cautioned that discovery could reveal facts that change this analysis. The opinion does not identify the specific state-law claims, but states that those claims were based on Doe’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Doe’s claims, including her state-law claims. The case was set for an initial case-management conference, with a joint case-management statement due beforehand.