CO: Juvie probation wouldn’t be deterred by suppressing DNA taken in violation of statute

Taking a DNA swab from a juvenile on probation violated the state statute on juvenile probation, but the court declines to suppress the evidence because probation officers cannot be deterred from committing such statutory violations. “Juvenile probation officers performing a supervisory function for the juvenile court have no stake in the outcome of criminal prosecutions and thus the threat of exclusion ‘cannot be expected significantly to deter them.’ Leon, 468 U.S. at 917; see Calandra, 414 U.S. at 347; Altman, 960 P.2d at 1168.” People v. Casillas, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 289 (February 26, 2015). Earlier in the opinion:

Suppression of evidence deters unlawful police conduct “by removing the incentive to disregard [the Fourth Amendment],” Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960), and the extent to which suppression is justified “varies with the culpability of the law enforcement conduct,” Herring, 555 U.S. at 143. Suppression has no deterrent value when an actor has “no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 917; see also People v. Gall, 30 P.3d 145, 150 (Colo. 2001) (“Because neutral judicial officers have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal proceedings, the threat of exclusion cannot be expected to significantly modify their behavior.”).

We conclude that the suppression of the DNA evidence obtained from the juvenile probation officer’s cheek swab would have no deterrent value. At the time, Casillas was neither suspected of violating a term or condition of his deferred adjudication nor suspected of committing a crime. Thus, the juvenile probation officer who performed the cheek swab was performing nothing more than a supervisory function under the direction of the juvenile court.

Once again, an appellate court indulging in pure fiction because the members of the court lack real world experience. If the judges had any experience in the state criminal justice system, ever cross-examined a smug probation officer, they’d see that state probation and parole officers often consider themselves adjunct law enforcement officers; after all, they go on raids with the police wanting to do probation searches. They would be deterred, if any experience, logic, or common sense ever seeped into the appellate decision making process.