D.Ariz.: Court could order DNA test after charging

The government moved for an order requiring defendant to submit to a buccal swab for DNA to include or exclude him from certain evidence in a homicide case. “Accordingly, the Court finds that, although a buccal swab of the cheek is a search, pursuant to King, the Government’s interests outweigh Defendant’s reduced expectation of privacy and the intrusion of a buccal swab is minimal.” United States v. Bravo, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220162 (D.Ariz. Nov. 12, 2021).

Accepting plaintiff’s version that he only showed the butt of his gun according to his CCW training in a concealed carry state, he was not a danger. “Redrick was in lawful possession of a firearm, which he kept at his side. But mere possession of a weapon without more is insufficient to justify deadly force. … And where it is feasible, non-lethal means must be utilized before resorting to deadly force. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11–12.” Redrick v. City of Akron, Ohio, 21-3027 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging by a motion to suppress a search of his motel room after he should have left but didn’t. “The postconviction court concluded that the time difference was ‘fribbling’ and found that even if a suppression motion had been granted, Sholar made ‘no showing on how suppression … would have been reasonably probable to alter the result of the trial in any respect whatsoever.’ Ultimately, we conclude that Sholar’s claim based on the suppression motion has been previously litigated and he is therefore barred from raising the claim again.” The trial court was right, and, even if not, harmless error. State v. Sholar, 2019AP1636 (Wis. App. Nov. 16, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, DNA, Excessive force. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.