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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.