By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
DNA testing of an individual’s property without a warrant or consent constitutes an unreasonable search and is unconstitutional, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled lasy Thursday.
In People v. Serges (SC Docket No. 167154), a 5-1 decision with Justice Richard Bernstein writing for the majority, the court ruled a DNA test “is simply not part of a reasonable inventory search, nor is it justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, especially when the arrest was for a charge unrelated to the reason for the search.”
Justice Brian Zahra, the lone dissent, wrote the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for his pants, which were the item tested for DNA, as they were in police custody.
“I would hold that no search occurred here, and that accordingly, the evidence was properly admitted,” Zahra wrote.
The case involves a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder of an elderly woman in her home. No information from the crime scene pointed to the defendant, though several neighbors said they saw him around the home and he did occasional work around the home of the victim.
Later, the defendant was arrested and arraigned on an unrelated charge and law enforcement collected his belongings from jail. In the process, law enforcement conducted DNA testing on the defendant’s pants and found a small amount of blood that matched the murder victim. The DNA evidence was used to charge the defendant with the murder.
Justice Noah Hood did not participate as he was on the Court of Appeals panel that considered the case.
In another opinion released Thursday – People v. Haupt (SC Docket No. 167315) – a mostly unanimous decision held a defendant was deprived of counsel at a critical point in their criminal case. The court remanded and ordered a new trial.
It was mostly unanimous, as Justice Kyra Harris Bolden wrote the majority opinion, signed by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Kimberly Thomas.
Justice Noah Hood concurred but wrote separately to discuss the critical period in the proceedings. Justice Brian Zahra, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Richard Bernstein, joined separately as well with a more limited analysis though ultimately agreed with the majority holding.
Finally, in People v. Sanders (SC Docket No. 167899), the court considered what happens when statements are made by an individual who was held for more than 48 hours in a local jail without being formally arrested, which the court has already determined is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
In a 6-1 decision, the court held that statements made by a detained arrestee while seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a prompt judicial determination of probable cause must be excluded from evidence unless the prosecution establishes that the statements were sufficiently attenuated from the taint of the unconstitutional conduct.
The decision means the case, which involves the defendant being charged with child abuse and felony murder after taking his three-month old to the hospital with injuries that ultimately led to their death, will go back to the trial court to determine the admissibility of the challenged statements under this standard.
In the case, the defendant was held by police for 64 hours before being formally arrested, and during those 64 hours made comments the prosecution wanted to admit as evidence during trial.
Justice Brian Zahra dissented.
“The Fourth Amendment violation arises from the illegal detention of defendant, not from the introduction of evidence obtained during that detention,” he wrote. “There are far more suitable remedies available to defendant than suppression of evidence for the violation of his Fourth Amendment right. These alternative remedies will deter wrongful police conduct without imposing the high cost on our criminal justice system of excluding evidence critical to the truth-seeking process of a criminal trial.”
Gongwer News Service
DNA testing of an individual’s property without a warrant or consent constitutes an unreasonable search and is unconstitutional, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled lasy Thursday.
In People v. Serges (SC Docket No. 167154), a 5-1 decision with Justice Richard Bernstein writing for the majority, the court ruled a DNA test “is simply not part of a reasonable inventory search, nor is it justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, especially when the arrest was for a charge unrelated to the reason for the search.”
Justice Brian Zahra, the lone dissent, wrote the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for his pants, which were the item tested for DNA, as they were in police custody.
“I would hold that no search occurred here, and that accordingly, the evidence was properly admitted,” Zahra wrote.
The case involves a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder of an elderly woman in her home. No information from the crime scene pointed to the defendant, though several neighbors said they saw him around the home and he did occasional work around the home of the victim.
Later, the defendant was arrested and arraigned on an unrelated charge and law enforcement collected his belongings from jail. In the process, law enforcement conducted DNA testing on the defendant’s pants and found a small amount of blood that matched the murder victim. The DNA evidence was used to charge the defendant with the murder.
Justice Noah Hood did not participate as he was on the Court of Appeals panel that considered the case.
In another opinion released Thursday – People v. Haupt (SC Docket No. 167315) – a mostly unanimous decision held a defendant was deprived of counsel at a critical point in their criminal case. The court remanded and ordered a new trial.
It was mostly unanimous, as Justice Kyra Harris Bolden wrote the majority opinion, signed by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Kimberly Thomas.
Justice Noah Hood concurred but wrote separately to discuss the critical period in the proceedings. Justice Brian Zahra, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Richard Bernstein, joined separately as well with a more limited analysis though ultimately agreed with the majority holding.
Finally, in People v. Sanders (SC Docket No. 167899), the court considered what happens when statements are made by an individual who was held for more than 48 hours in a local jail without being formally arrested, which the court has already determined is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
In a 6-1 decision, the court held that statements made by a detained arrestee while seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a prompt judicial determination of probable cause must be excluded from evidence unless the prosecution establishes that the statements were sufficiently attenuated from the taint of the unconstitutional conduct.
The decision means the case, which involves the defendant being charged with child abuse and felony murder after taking his three-month old to the hospital with injuries that ultimately led to their death, will go back to the trial court to determine the admissibility of the challenged statements under this standard.
In the case, the defendant was held by police for 64 hours before being formally arrested, and during those 64 hours made comments the prosecution wanted to admit as evidence during trial.
Justice Brian Zahra dissented.
“The Fourth Amendment violation arises from the illegal detention of defendant, not from the introduction of evidence obtained during that detention,” he wrote. “There are far more suitable remedies available to defendant than suppression of evidence for the violation of his Fourth Amendment right. These alternative remedies will deter wrongful police conduct without imposing the high cost on our criminal justice system of excluding evidence critical to the truth-seeking process of a criminal trial.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
