{"id":55254,"date":"2023-06-29T10:16:00","date_gmt":"2023-06-29T15:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55254"},"modified":"2023-06-29T10:34:43","modified_gmt":"2023-06-29T15:34:43","slug":"ga-refusal-to-consent-to-taking-a-dna-swab-in-a-rape-investigation-is-admissible-at-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55254","title":{"rendered":"GA: Refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Defendant\u2019s refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial. Post-arrest cheek swabs do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they are accepted police booking and jailing procedures, similar to fingerprinting and photographing. Johnson v. State<\/a>, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 332 (June 27, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendant\u2019s Franks and lack of probable cause challenges fail. The investigators used video surveillance and LPR information to clearly put defendant and his car near the scene of the bank robbery about the time it happened and then leaving the bank. A warrant was issued for his car and his home. The really minor mistakes were not material to the finding of probable cause, and the officer\u2019s testimony and candidness during hearing testimony impressed the suppression judge. The motion to suppress was properly denied. United States v. Chaney<\/a>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16151 (10th Cir. June 27, 2023).* (An interesting investigation.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The officer had information from a CI that defendant would be in one of two cars going to a location for a meth deal. He saw one car with defendant in it and followed it. Defendant\u2019s arm and hand gestures suggested to him that defendant would flee, but he didn\u2019t before the stop. That added to reasonable suspicion. Chapman v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 328 (June 27, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial. Post-arrest cheek swabs do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they are accepted police booking and jailing procedures, similar to fingerprinting and photographing. … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,57,21,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-admissibility-of-evidence","category-dna","category-franks-doctrine","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=55254"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55254\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55256,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55254\/revisions\/55256"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=55254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=55254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=55254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}