OH10: Taking GSR at scene of shooting was with exigent circumstances

Taking GSR samples from defendant at the scene of a potential murder was with exigent circumstances and wasn’t intrusive. “As in Jarrell, the GSR evidence was highly evanescent evidence that was susceptible to destruction from simple activities like wiping one’s hands or touching one’s face or other objects. Police officers observed Holli touching her face and the table and drinking water—all of which could destroy the potential evidence necessary for a GSR test. Here, the samples for the GSR test were taken with minimal intrusion on Holli by running a swab along her hands and eyebrows. We find that the collection of samples for the GSR test does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment as it involved the collection of highly evanescent evidence, taken with minimal intrusion on Holli, and was supported by probable cause.” State v. Osborn, 2024-Ohio-528, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 522 (10th Dist. Feb. 13, 2024).

The question of consent here turns entirely on which witnesses the District Court believed at the suppression hearing. The finding of consent is affirmed. United States v. Rodriguez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3348 (3d Cir. Feb. 13, 2024).*

On plain error review, defendant’s search warrant came up during trial, and the AUSA’s one sentence reference to the process wasn’t unfair. United States v. Thompson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3356 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.