Arizona Supreme Court: Case No. CR-23-0236-PR Filed December 17, 2024
State of Arizona v. Ian Mitcham
Key Legal Issues:
- Whether sequencing a DNA profile from a blood sample obtained during a DUI arrest constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the scope of consent for a blood draw for DUI testing extends to creating a DNA profile for unrelated investigations.
- Whether the exclusionary rule applies to DNA evidence obtained without a warrant.
Resulting Opinion of Key Legal Issues:
- The court held that creating a DNA profile from a lawfully obtained blood sample constitutes a separate search under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court determined that consent for a blood draw to determine alcohol concentration or drug content does not extend to creating a DNA profile for unrelated investigations.
- The court ruled that while the warrantless DNA profiling violated the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule does not apply due to the inevitable discovery exception.
Synopsis:
This case addresses the Fourth Amendment implications of using a blood sample obtained for DUI testing to create a DNA profile for an unrelated murder investigation. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that extracting a DNA profile from a lawfully obtained blood sample constitutes a separate search requiring a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. The court rejected the state’s argument that lawful possession of the blood sample from a DUI allowed unrestricted analysis. The court affirmed and applied the two-step analysis from Mario W. v. Kaipio, distinguishing between the initial blood draw and subsequent DNA profiling.
Despite finding a Fourth Amendment violation, the court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply due to the inevitable discovery exception. The court reasoned that Mitcham’s subsequent felony convictions would have required him to provide a DNA sample under Arizona law, making the discovery of his DNA profile inevitable through lawful means. The decision emphasizes the ongoing privacy interests in biological samples, even when lawfully obtained by law enforcement. It also explicates a broad application of the inevitable discovery doctrine, considering events that occurred after the illegal search to determine whether evidence would have been lawfully obtained.
Outcome of the Case:
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings.