ND: Taking DNA sample by search warrant was not a “critical stage”

A juvenile accused of a forced sex offense did not have a right to have an attorney or his parents present for execution of a search warrant for his DNA because it was not a “critical stage” of the proceedings. Also, the affidavit for the search warrant did not omit any material facts to the finding of probable cause. State v. Poitra, 2010 ND 137, 785 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 2010):

[*P25] In general, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to an attorney before submitting DNA during the execution of a search warrant. See, e.g., McClain v. State, 410 N.E.2d 1297, 1303 (Ind. 1980) (no right to counsel during execution of a search warrant for internal body secretions, swab emission test does not involve attempts to get testimony or assertions and is not a critical stage of the proceedings); State v. Delisle, 630 A.2d 767 (N.H. 1993) (a defendant does not have a right to an attorney prior to giving blood samples pursuant to a warrant); Hale v. State, 220 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App. 2007) (no right to counsel when taking a saliva sample for DNA testing because it was not a critical stage of the proceedings). Poitra fails to cite any authority granting juveniles greater protections in executing a search warrant than an adult criminal defendant receives.

[*P26] Unlike cases where a juvenile must consent or refuse to take a chemical test, a juvenile does not have a choice whether to provide evidence when a search warrant has been issued. …

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.