{"id":64250,"date":"2026-06-17T12:55:46","date_gmt":"2026-06-17T17:55:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=64250"},"modified":"2026-06-17T12:55:46","modified_gmt":"2026-06-17T17:55:46","slug":"cal-4-sw-not-needed-to-test-dna-abandoned-in-a-rape","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=64250","title":{"rendered":"Cal.4: SW not needed to test DNA abandoned in a rape"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Defendant\u2019s DNA left at the scene of two rapes was abandoned, and the state didn\u2019t need a warrant to search it. <a href=\"https:\/\/www4.courts.ca.gov\/opinions\/documents\/G063674.PDF\">People v. Konther<\/a>, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 369 (4th Dist. June 12, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a drug case bench trial, the judge is presumed not to imply guilt from the existence of a search warrant. State v. Stallworth, 2026-Ohio-2242, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2214 (3d Dist. June 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Officers had probable cause to believe defendant was in his girlfriend\u2019s high-rise apartment when they came with an arrest warrant. They didn\u2019t find him, but a sweep revealed a gun under a mattress. That led to a search warrant. \u201cThe Court rules that the officers had a reasonable basis to believe that Mr. Burch was inside the apartment, and that their discovery of the pistol under the bed was the product of a reasonable search for Mr. Burch and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, despite its many errors, made with reckless disregard for the truth, the Court finds that the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant still supports a finding of probable cause. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion in full.\u201d United States v. Burch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132653 (N.D. Ill. June 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s DNA left at the scene of two rapes was abandoned, and the state didn\u2019t need a warrant to search it. People v. Konther, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 369 (4th Dist. June 12, 2026). In a drug case bench trial, &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=64250\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48,124,57,21,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abandonment","category-admissibility-of-evidence","category-dna","category-franks-doctrine","category-protective-sweep"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=64250"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64250\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64251,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64250\/revisions\/64251"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=64250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=64250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=64250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}