MN: No difference between the privacy interest in DNA abandoned at the scene of a crime and the specific genetic information within it

There’s no difference between the privacy interest in DNA abandoned at the scene of a crime and the specific genetic information within it. State v. Carbo, 2024 Minn. LEXIS 236 (May 8, 2024). [A creative argument, but one always doomed to fail.]

Defendant’s appellate argument saved for the reply brief is waived. Considering it on plain error, it isn’t even error, let alone plain error, based on the record the court has. Williams v. United States, 2024 D.C. App. LEXIS 182 (May 9, 2024).*

Defendant’s motion to suppress is denied for a host of reasons: “Defendant moves to suppress the firearm and argues the warrantless search of his bag violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court disagrees and denies the motion because the search of his bag was valid under the Fourth Amendment. The automobile exception justifies the search if the bag was a container apart from Defendant’s person. The search-incident-to-arrest exception justifies the search if the bag was part of his person (or within his control). Further, even if the bag’s search violated the Fourth Amendment, the Court would not suppress the firearm because officers would have inevitably discovered it.” United States v. Walker, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84511 (D. Kan. May 9, 2024).*