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
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. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT