ILNews

Police allowed to test seized shoe without warrant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court held Wednesday that police do not need to have a warrant before testing lawfully seized evidence, even if that evidence is unrelated to the crime for which the defendant is in custody.

Douglas A. Guilmette argued that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress the DNA evidence of Greg Piechocki found in blood in Guilmette’s shoe. Guilmette stole Piechocki’s car keys and cash while Piechocki was asleep in their co-worker’s house and Guilmette drove to Wal-Mart and Meijer, where he stole several items. He returned the car and left around 7 a.m. The co-worker discovered Piechocki’s body that afternoon, and it was determined Piechocki died from injuries suffered from being hit by a baseball bat.

Police questioned Guilmette and arrested him on two counts of theft after he admitted to taking the keys and money from Piechocki. They seized his clothes in accordance with standard booking protocol. After discovering what appeared to be blood on his shoe, police had it tested, which revealed Piechocki’s DNA. Guilmette was then also charged with murder and being a habitual offender. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to 92 years in prison.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, although the panel believed the DNA should not have been admitted, but was a harmless error. In Douglas A. Guilmette v. State of Indiana, 71S04-1310-CR-705, the justices also affirmed in a decision authored by Justice Mark Massa.

Guilmette argued the evidence’s admission violated Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because he was arrested for theft, but then his shoe was seized to search for evidence of his involvement in the murder. He argued the DNA test was not a valid search incident to arrest, and the police should have had a warrant before performing it.

This is a question of first impression under the state constitution, but the admissibility of that same evidence under the Fourth Amendment is well-established, Massa pointed out.

“And we see no reason to reach a different result under our own state constitution. Police had a justifiably strong suspicion that Guilmette had murdered Piechocki; Guilmette lied about his activities during the relevant time period, stole Piechocki’s money and keys, and had what appeared to be (and in fact was) blood on his shoe. The intrusion on Guilmette’s ordinary activities was minimal, as officers routinely seize an arrestee’s personal effects, including clothing, as part of the booking procedure. Finally, although there was no exigency requiring immediate testing of the blood on the shoe, it would be extremely cumbersome to require law enforcement to take the ‘belt-and-suspenders’ approach of applying for an independent warrant anytime they wish to examine or test a piece of evidence they have already lawfully seized,” he wrote.

It also does not matter that the test revealed evidence of a different crime from that for which he was arrested, the justices held. They summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals decision on all other matters.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT