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
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