ILNews

COA splits on cheek-swab requirements

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A split Indiana Court of Appeals ruled taking a cheek swab for DNA testing requires reasonable suspicion only, not probable cause, under federal and state constitutions.

In Arturo Garcia-Torres v. State of Indiana, No. 64A03-0812-CR-630, Judges Cale Bradford and Elaine Brown agreed that police didn't need a warrant before obtaining a cheek swab from Arturo Garcia-Torres, who was brought in for questioning about the attacks of two Valparaiso University students. Garcia-Torres was eventually convicted of rape, two counts of burglary, and attempted rape.

While being questioned by the police, Garcia-Torres consented to a cheek swab to collect DNA evidence. He also made incriminating statements that were eventually suppressed at his joined trial.

The majority concluded police didn't need a warrant to get the evidence because they had reasonable suspicion Garcia-Torres committed the attacks.

"If anything, the cheek swab involves much less impact on the subject than some other searches that all agree may be conducted based on mere reasonable suspicion," wrote Judge Bradford, mentioning pat-down searches for weapons or field-sobriety tests.

The majority supported its decision with In re Shabazz, 200 F. Supp. 2d 578, 585 (D.S.C. 2002), from the U.S. District Court in South Carolina. In addition, police had more than a hunch that Garcia-Torres was the attacker.

Judges Bradford and Brown also concluded the DNA evidence shouldn't be suppressed under Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975). It would do no good to consult with an attorney regarding rights to refuse consent and search warrants when a defendant can't refuse consent and the state doesn't have to have a search warrant, wrote Judge Bradford, so Pirtle's advisement requirement has no place in the context of a reasonable suspicion search.

"It makes little sense to punish the police for failing to give an advisement of one's right to counsel when exercise of that right could only produce such a futile consultation."

Judge Terry Crone argued in his dissent that taking the swab from a custodial suspect requires probable cause under the Fourth Amendment and is subject to the advice-of-counsel requirements of Pirtle.

"It is difficult to imagine a more intrusive invasion of an individual's personal privacy than a DNA search, and the potential consequences of such a search are much more significant than the majority suggests," he wrote, adding the DNA may reveal irrelevant information for law enforcement purposes.

Judge Crone believed Garcia-Torres should have been informed of his right to counsel about the search and that Pirtle and other Indiana Supreme Court cases don't distinguish between searches requiring probable cause and those requiring only reasonable suspicion.

"If our supreme court wants to carve out an exception to the rule it announced in Pirtle, that is its prerogative, not ours," he wrote.

Judge Crone would reverse Garcia-Torres' convictions, remand for a new trial, and sever the charges against him. The majority affirmed the joining of his charges, ruling the crimes were connected together for purposes of Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-9(a)(2), and upheld his convictions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT