Recently there have been Fourth Amendment challenges to the methods that law enforcement officers have used to obtain DNA samples from suspects without a warrant. Cases addressing those issues are listed below:

1. Commonwealth v. Rice, Supreme of Massachusetts, 3/24/04. While in custody on an unrelated charge, the defendant’s bed sheets, inmate uniform and T-shirt were secured during the ordinary course of collecting standard-issue bed sheets and inmate uniforms for periodic laundering. The items were seized and DNA tested - the DNA matched DNA from the homicide. The court found that the defendant did not establish that the items were seized during a search and that he failed to show that he had a subjective expectation of privacy in the items seized. Rice.PDF
2. People v. Ayler, Supreme Court, Kings County, New York, No. 3217/2003, 9/22/04. During an interview with police, the defendant asked for a cigarette. He was given cigarettes and smoked three leaving the butts in an ashtray in the interview room. Police emptied the contents of the ashtray and sent them to a lab for DNA testing. DNA from the cigarettes matched DNA from the rape. The court found that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the cigarette butts and was, therefore, not deprived of his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Alyers.PDF
3. State v. Christian, Court of Appeals of Iowa, No. 04-0900 8/23/06. An undercover police officer sat in while the defendant was interviewed for a volunteer position. The officer provided him a bottle of water and a fork to eat a piece of cake. The defendant left these items and, after the interview, they were collected and DNA tested. The DNA from the bottle and the fork matched DNA from the sexual assault. The court found that the defendant had abandoned the bottle and fork and, therefore, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in either item. Christian.PDF
4. Commonwealth v. Ewing, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable, No. 05-P-442, 10/6/06, Further Appellate Review Granted 11/30/06. While being interviewed, the defendant was provided a soft drink and a straw, and he smoked three cigarettes provided by the police. Once the defendant left the room, detectives seized the straw and the cigarette butts and submitted them for DNA testing. The DNA recovered from one of the cigarette butts matched the DNA from the rape. The court ruled that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in items that he voluntarily abandoned as trash and, given the circumstances, if this was a ruse by the police, it was proper. Ewing.PDF
5. State v. Reed, North Carolina Court of Appeals, NO. COA06-4006, 3/6/07. The defendant flicked a cigarette butt onto his patio during an interview with detectives. One of the detectives kicked the butt off of the patio and into the grassy common area, and later recovered it. DNA from the cigarette butt matched DNA from the victim’s shirt. The court ruled that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy on his patio, thus this was an unconstitutional search and seizure. Reed.PDF
6. Commonwealth v. Bly, Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 3/7/07. Detectives met with the defendant in a jail. During the meeting the defendant smoked three cigarettes and drank from a water bottle. The cigarette butts and the bottle were collected for DNA testing and compared with DNA found at the crime scene. The cigarette butts and the bottle were taken from the meeting room a half an hour after the meeting ended. The court concluded that the defendant had no subjective expectation of privacy in these items as no search or seizure occurred. Bly.PDF
7. State v. Athan, Supreme Court of Washington, 5/10/07. Detectives, posing as a fictitious law firm, sent the defendant a letter inviting him to join a fictitious class action lawsuit. The defendant’s DNA profile was obtained from the return envelope and compared to a DNA sample from the crime scene. The court held that, under these circumstances, any privacy interest was lost. The envelope, and any saliva contained on it, became the property of the recipient. Athan.PDF
8. Commonwealth v. Cabral, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 06-P-987, 5/16/07. The defendant spat on a public sidewalk, a private detective collected the spittle and it was sent to a laboratory for DNA testing. The court concluded that the expectorating defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy for his spittle, nor the DNA evidence derived therefrom. Cabral.PDF
9. State v. Homz, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, No. 2006AP2337-CR, 12/12/07. The victim’s mother gave police a bed sheet from her home upon which she and the defendant had had sex. DNA from semen found on the sheet matched DNA from semen found on underwear and swabs taken from the victim. The court found that the mother was not a State agent for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and that, even if the Fourth Amendment applied to this circumstance, a warrantless seizure of property whose owner has abandoned it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Homz.PDF