and the court has the discretion to expunge and then if the court doesn't expunge then denial is unappealable, isn't that correct? >> the process -- that is not a full description. >> i didn't expect it to be a full because i haven't got all day to give it to you to read but the bottom line is this is expunged only when the court has discretion and if the prosecutor says no, often it doesn't, it cannot happen? >> that is a very limited reading of that procedure. what the statute actually provides -- >> tell me then it seems to me there is quite a bit of difference between automatic expungement on one side and going through the process and maybe get it done on the other side. and therefore, is that not a difference we ought to take into effect? that's my question. >> it's not a difference of constitutional significance. >> why? >> because there is a valid procedure for an individual to have the d.n.a. sample expunged from the state's data base. there is an expedited procedure to do it and california has done it within two to four weeks and that's its average time. california modeled it's expun

that's an unappealable decision. >> there wouldn't have to be an explanation, wouldn't have to know bhy. >> we would assume the court would follow -- >> you can assume the -- assume anything you wish but you wouldn't know. >> is there anything in justice kennedy's opinion that talks about the reasonableness of the use of d.n.a. in the booking statute to an ability to expunge the d.n.a. if the person were found innocent? >> no. >> didn't even enter into his thinking, did it? >> it didn't. it's not that different -- >> are you going to speculate on what jus tess kennedy was thinking when he wrote an opinion? that there was automatic expungement and no cause to address the issue, are you going to speculate what he was thinking? >>ic the opinion is have -- is a very broad opinion. the court was well acare of the difference in expungement procedures. it was aware of the difference between california's law and maryland's law. s your honor pointed out, we told the court of the differences in california law and the aclu told the court of the differences in the california law and the court was a

the court has the discretion to expunge and then if the court doesn't expunge, then denial is unappealable, isn't that correct? >> the process -- that is not a full description. expungement process. >> i didn't expect it to be a full because i haven't got all day to give it to you if i had to read the statute. but the bottom line is this is expunged only when the court has discretion and if the prosecutor says no, often it doesn't, it cannot happen? >> that is a very limited reading of that procedure. what the statute actually provides -- >> tell me, then -- it seems to me there is quite a bit of difference between automatic expungement on one side and going through the process and maybe get it done on the other side. and therefore, is that not a difference we ought to take into effect? that's my question. >> it's not a difference of constitutional significance. >> why? >> because there is a valid procedure for an individual to have the d.n.a. sample expunged from the state's database. in fact, there is an expedited andedure for doing it california has done it within two to four weeks. tim