ILNews

Supreme Court rules on cheek swab case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a 4-1 decision handed down June 30, the Indiana Supreme Court found a man's consent to the swab of his cheek for DNA was voluntary, so the swab didn't violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Arturo Garcia-Torres v. State of Indiana, No. 64S03-0912-CR-550, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard authored the majority opinion that delved into caselaw regarding extracting bodily evidence from a person, such as blood draws, urine samples, and fingerprints. Arturo Garcia-Torres, convicted of rape, attempted rape, and two counts of burglary, challenged the denial of his motion to suppress DNA evidence taken from a cheek swab while he was detained by police. Garcia-Torres was read his Miranda warnings in Spanish prior to the swab and confessed to attempting to rape one of the victims. The DNA taken from Garcia-Torres matched the DNA taken from another victim's rape kit and DNA found on a shoe left in another victim's apartment.

His incriminating statements to police were suppressed because the Miranda warnings hadn't been accurately translated into Spanish.

At issue is whether a cheek swab from a person under arrest is a search requiring its own separate warrant or other justification. The chief justice noted that most courts that have addressed the constitutionality of cheek swabs have concluded that it is a "search" for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment.

The justices looked at cases dealing with searches, including blood and breath samples, and non-search examples that dealt with fingerprinting.

"Fourth Amendment principles seem to suggest that DNA has more in common with fingerprints then it does with blood alcohol content, but like many courts, the parties to this appeal have taken for granted that the swab was a search requiring its own separate probable cause proceedings, even for a suspect in lawful custody for rape," Chief Justice Shepard wrote.

The evidence shows that Garcia-Torres voluntarily consented to the cheek swab, so it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The majority also held that a Pirtle advisement wasn't required before the swab was taken. The various interests at stake on occasions when the high court has required a Pirtle advisement — police searches of homes or vehicles — aren't present in the instant case, so Garcia-Torres didn't have to be given the advisement that he had the right to consult an attorney about giving consent to search.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented, focusing on the issue of whether a person in police custody is entitled to be advised of his right to counsel before consenting to a cheek swab for DNA. A cheek swab is search under the meaning of the Federal Constitution, he wrote, and this can be no less true under Indiana's Constitution.

The Indiana Constitution makes no distinction as to what the search is when it says "the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated. ..." It doesn't matter whether the search is of a home or a person, he wrote.

He found the search in this case to be illegal because it was conducted without a warrant, but because Garcia-Torres consented, there was no violation.

"But, the Indiana Constitution provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution. And under our state constitution the investigating officer was required to advise Garcia-Torres that he had a right to consult with his lawyer before consenting to the search. Because no such advisement was given, the consent was invalid as a matter of Indiana law," he wrote.

He would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.
 

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT