ILNews

Supreme Court rules on cheek swab case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a 4-1 decision handed down June 30, the Indiana Supreme Court found a man's consent to the swab of his cheek for DNA was voluntary, so the swab didn't violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Arturo Garcia-Torres v. State of Indiana, No. 64S03-0912-CR-550, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard authored the majority opinion that delved into caselaw regarding extracting bodily evidence from a person, such as blood draws, urine samples, and fingerprints. Arturo Garcia-Torres, convicted of rape, attempted rape, and two counts of burglary, challenged the denial of his motion to suppress DNA evidence taken from a cheek swab while he was detained by police. Garcia-Torres was read his Miranda warnings in Spanish prior to the swab and confessed to attempting to rape one of the victims. The DNA taken from Garcia-Torres matched the DNA taken from another victim's rape kit and DNA found on a shoe left in another victim's apartment.

His incriminating statements to police were suppressed because the Miranda warnings hadn't been accurately translated into Spanish.

At issue is whether a cheek swab from a person under arrest is a search requiring its own separate warrant or other justification. The chief justice noted that most courts that have addressed the constitutionality of cheek swabs have concluded that it is a "search" for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment.

The justices looked at cases dealing with searches, including blood and breath samples, and non-search examples that dealt with fingerprinting.

"Fourth Amendment principles seem to suggest that DNA has more in common with fingerprints then it does with blood alcohol content, but like many courts, the parties to this appeal have taken for granted that the swab was a search requiring its own separate probable cause proceedings, even for a suspect in lawful custody for rape," Chief Justice Shepard wrote.

The evidence shows that Garcia-Torres voluntarily consented to the cheek swab, so it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The majority also held that a Pirtle advisement wasn't required before the swab was taken. The various interests at stake on occasions when the high court has required a Pirtle advisement — police searches of homes or vehicles — aren't present in the instant case, so Garcia-Torres didn't have to be given the advisement that he had the right to consult an attorney about giving consent to search.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented, focusing on the issue of whether a person in police custody is entitled to be advised of his right to counsel before consenting to a cheek swab for DNA. A cheek swab is search under the meaning of the Federal Constitution, he wrote, and this can be no less true under Indiana's Constitution.

The Indiana Constitution makes no distinction as to what the search is when it says "the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated. ..." It doesn't matter whether the search is of a home or a person, he wrote.

He found the search in this case to be illegal because it was conducted without a warrant, but because Garcia-Torres consented, there was no violation.

"But, the Indiana Constitution provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution. And under our state constitution the investigating officer was required to advise Garcia-Torres that he had a right to consult with his lawyer before consenting to the search. Because no such advisement was given, the consent was invalid as a matter of Indiana law," he wrote.

He would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT