Use of a subpoena duces tecum for DNA was a search requiring probable cause, but inevitable discovery applies

Use of an Attorney General’s subpoena duces tecum to get defendant’s DNA constituted a search for which probable cause was required, and here it was lacking even to support the issuance of the subpoena. The state, however, proved [overwhelmingly] that it was closing in on defendant as a serial killer, and inevitable discovery supported the search. State v. Derrick, 976 So. 2d 109 (La. 2008):

Considering the historical facts that are verifiable, we find the State satisfied its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence there was a parallel and independent investigation unrelated to the illegal search that would have inevitably and legally yielded defendant’s DNA. When viewed in light of the Task Force’s receipt of four rapid-fire tips identifying defendant by name and make of car after the release of the sketch of the serial killer, it is apparent defendant’s apprehension was no longer an object of pure Speculation, but rather a matter of imminent reality. The tips various citizens called in provided probable cause to arrest defendant as Alexander’s assailant. Through the pursuit of this entirely independent investigation based on information entirely untainted by the prior collection of defendant’s DNA sample, it is evident the police would have arrested the defendant and would have secured a DNA sample. Thus, the State has shown: (1) there is a reasonable probability the contested evidence would have been discovered by lawful means in the absence of police misconduct; and (2) law enforcement was actively pursuing a substantial alternate line of investigation at the time of the constitutional violation. …

DNA testing of a juvenile delinquent is constitutional. In re Lakisha M., 227 Ill. 2d 259, 882 N.E.2d 570, 317 Ill. Dec. 690 (2008).*