CT: Refusal to cooperate with SW for DNA swab admissible to show consciousness of guilt

While one can refuse a consent search, refusal to cooperate with a search warrant can be used as evidence of guilt; here an attempt to take DNA by search warrant, all captured on video. It was relevant as showing defendant’s consciousness of guilt. State v. Gonzalez, 2015 Conn. LEXIS 32 (February 24, 2015):

We also reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have excluded the video recording because the defendant “was trying to protect his constitutional rights.” The defendant relies on a number of cases in which we have held that “consciousness of guilt evidence should not be admitted when doing so would chill an important legal right or undermine public policy.” State v. Coccomo, supra, 302 Conn. 677; see also State v. Jones, 234 Conn. 324, 358-59, 662 A.2d 1199 (1995) (trial court improperly instructed jury that it may consider, as proof of consciousness of guilt, evidence that defendant refused to comply, on religious grounds, with court order directing him to give hair and blood samples). The defendant fails to appreciate, however, that he had no constitutional right to refuse to comply with the warrant for the buccal swab sample. See Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 550, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1968); see also General Statutes § 54-33d (prohibiting person from, inter alia, resisting, impeding or interfering with any person authorized to execute search warrant or to effect search or seizure in performance of his official duties). Moreover, the defendant has not identified any independent legal right or public policy that would be infringed by deeming the video recording in question admissible evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video recording of the defendant refusing to cooperate with the police officers who took the buccal swab sample.