MN: John Doe and DNA profile arrest warrant sufficiently particular for Fourth Amendment

John Doe and DNA profile arrest warrant sufficiently particular for Fourth Amendment, when that’s all they have. State v. Carlson, 2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 37 (April 7, 2014):

Since 2003, at least eight state appellate courts have considered whether a John Doe DNA complaint satisfies the particularity requirements of the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment. All of the cases involved serious sexual assaults where a John Doe DNA complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. The complaint warrants were later amended to include the defendant’s actual name after the statute of limitations for the offense had expired. Most of the courts concluded that when the DNA profile of a suspect is the best description available, a John Doe DNA complaint warrant is sufficient to commence a criminal action. See Robinson, 224 P.3d at 80; Commonwealth v. Dixon, 458 Mass. 446, 938 N.E.2d 878, 885 (Mass. 2010); Martinez, 855 N.Y.S.2d at 526; State v. Danley, 2006 Ohio 3585, 853 N.E.2d 1224, 1227-28 (Ohio Ct. C.P. 2006); State v. Burdick, 395 S.W.3d 120, 130 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Younge, ___ P.3d __, __, 2013 UT 71, 2013 WL 6153712, at *3 (Utah 2013); Dabney, 663 N.W.2d at 372. State v. Belt is the only case where a John Doe DNA arrest warrant was determined to be insufficient to prosecute the defendant. 285 Kan. 949, 179 P.3d 443, 450-51 (Kan. 2008). The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that several John Doe DNA arrest warrants were insufficient to identify the defendant because they listed only two DNA loci that are commonly found in one out of every 500 persons. Id. at 446-47, 450. But the court agreed, “in the abstract,” that an arrest warrant coupled with a description of the person’s unique DNA profile “can satisfy constitutional and statutory particularity requirements.” Id. at 450.