NY Co.: State showed PC for DNA test for firearm possession

Here, the state showed probable cause and reasonableness to seek DNA from defendant to compare it to alleged touch DNA found on the firearm he’s alleged to have possessed in threatening two ADAs. People v. Hightower, 2026 NY Slip Op 50106(U), 2026 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 424 (N.Y. Co. Jan. 20, 2026):

Here, judged by these standards, the facts noted above demonstrate that it is reasonably likely that defendant possessed a firearm. Defendant’s claims to the contrary fail, as he critically evaluates each piece of information separately and in isolation, rather than as a whole. Bigelow, 66 NY2d at 423. In addition, and in any event, the issuance of the search warrant further establishes that there was probable cause. People v Castillo, 80 NY2d 578 (1992) (presumption of validity attaches to search warrants because there has already been a judicial review as to its justification based on the existence of probable cause).

Second, there is also a clear indication that relevant material will be found as a result of the preliminary testing of the profile(s) from the swabs of the firearm. A comparison of the DNA evidence taken from that firearm to defendant’s DNA buccal swab will be relevant and material to the issue of the identity of the perpetrator. Such a comparison could “be relevant and material to both the People and defense in either the implication or exoneration of [d]efendant.” People v Macias, 65 Misc 3d 1225[A] (Crim Ct Kings Co 2019). Finally, it is well established that the method for obtaining buccal cell samples – namely, swabbing inside of the cheek – is safe, reliable, and minimally intrusive. See Maryland v King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013); Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d at 291; Goldman, 35 NY3d at 591.

These factors, combined with the seriousness of the crime of possessing a loaded firearm, weigh in favor of the People’s request. The People’s motion for an Order directing defendant to submit to a buccal swab for DNA testing and analysis is therefore granted. Defendant’s remaining contentions in opposition are denied as meritless.

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

Comments are closed.