MI: Def not in custody during execution of DNA warrant where she chose to talk

In a 25-year-old cold case of a buried infant, officers got a warrant for defendant’s DNA. She argued she was in custody for purposes of her statement given at the time, but she wasn’t. The officers were clear on that. People v. Gerwatowski, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 981 (Feb. 4, 2026).

This is the second suppression motion in this case, and it’s a month out of time and virtually identical to one already denied. United States v. Richmond, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23604 (D.S.D. Feb. 3, 2026).*

“A vehicle stop generally comports with the Fourth Amendment when it is supported by ‘probable cause that an occupant of the [vehicle] has committed a traffic offense,’ even if the officer stopped the vehicle ‘for a different reason.’” United States v. Hollyfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23257 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Custody, DNA, Pretext, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.