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. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT