MN: Warrantless DNA swabbing of apt door violated curtilage

The warrantless DNA swabbing of defendant’s apartment door was within the curtilage because it required physical contact, which is different than a dog sniff. “Although members of the public and law-enforcement officers generally have an implied license to approach a home physically knock on the front door, and wait briefly to be received [under Jardines], they have no implied license to remove material from the door handle and lock for laboratory testing.” State v. McNeal, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 264 (June 10, 2024).

Comparing the probable cause finding here with that of other somewhat similar cases, the court concludes that there was at least a substantial basis for finding probable cause. Therefore, the motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Garrett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101474 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2024).*

2254 petitioner never really responded to the R&R finding that he couldn’t raise a Fourth Amendment claim on habeas. On the merits, he can’t prevail. Majalca v. Thornell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101522 (D. Ariz. June 7, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, DNA, Issue preclusion, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.