FL3: Consent for DNA sample need not include warning it would be tested against CODIS, too

Defendant had his DNA taken by consent to attempt to match it to DNA found in a 2012 crime, but it didn’t match. It did, however, in CODIS match a 2008 sexual assault case. His motion to suppress was granted because the consent didn’t include more pervasive matching, and the state appealed and the court reversed. It is now well settled that DNA databases are no different than fingerprint databases were. “Federal and Florida courts, as well as those of other states, have not interpreted the Fourth Amendment to require a more detailed disclosure and consent requirement of the kind demanded by the trial court. To the contrary, DNA samples, profiles, and databases have been assessed in substantially the same way as other biometric identifiers, particularly fingerprints. The trial court’s order is a substantial and unsupported departure from controlling precedent.” State v. Gibson, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18949 (Fla. 3d DCA November 19, 2014).

Defendant was unusually nervous during a traffic stop. “Although the act of asking additional unrelated questions and waiting for backup unquestionably took more time than if Officer Valdes had not taken those steps, the Court finds that these additional actions did not ‘measurably extend the duration of the stop’ because the total amount of time was not unreasonable under the circumstances.” United States v. Swann, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162284 (M.D. Ga. November 20, 2014).*