MN: Request for consent to DNA after def lawyers up doesn’t violate 5A

“Because a request that a suspect consent to provide a DNA sample does not constitute interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona, … and DNA evidence is not testimonial or communicative in nature, a police officer does not violate a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights by asking for such consent after the suspect has invoked his or her right to remain silent.” State v. Heinonen, 2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 19 (Jan. 30, 2017).

Defendant’s post-conviction argument about the search was really just a reargument of the appeal, and the trial court didn’t err denying a hearing. Lacey v. State, 2017 MT 18, 2017 Mont. LEXIS 30 (Jan. 31, 2017).*

This entry was posted in DNA. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.