State v. Banks

Summary

The concurrence agrees with the majority but separately argues that Connecticut should clarify the distinction between mandatory and directory statutory provisions. It would treat the DNA-sample requirement as mandatory because it uses "shall," imposes a substantive obligation on a private person, and serves important public-policy objectives, while recognizing that the separate question of whether the sample may be compelled by force is governed by the majority's analysis. Because the supplied opinion is a concurrence, it has no independent holding.