CO: Prosecutor’s closing argument that def refused consent to searching for DNA sample was reversible error

Prosecutor’s argument defendant refused to consent to taking his DNA in a sex crime prosecution violated the Fourth Amendment and was error here. People v. Buckner, 2022 COA 14, 2022 Colo. App. LEXIS 163 (Feb. 3, 2022).

The bodycam video shows that defendant may have been in mental distress, and that might have supported the officer taking him into protective custody under the community caretaking function. The findings, however, are inadequate. “Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Towner’s motion to suppress and remand the case with instructions for the district court to enter findings of fact related to whether the State proved that Towner was ‘gravely disabled’ or an ‘imminent danger’ to himself or others because of his mental illness. Having reversed the district court’s denial of Towner’s motion to suppress on this basis, we do not reach Towner’s alternative argument that the later search was not justified within the scope of the community caretaking function.” State v. Towner, 2022 Ida. LEXIS 9 (Feb. 3, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, DNA. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.