Commonwealth v. Arzola
470 Mass. 809
Mass.2015Background
- Victim Mauricio Arevalo was stabbed and robbed on Aug. 23, 2010; he later identified the assailant as a heavy-set Hispanic male wearing a gray shirt.
- Police stopped and arrested Manuel Arzola on an unrelated outstanding warrant near the scene; officers observed a possible bloodstain on the left sleeve of Arzola's gray shirt and seized the shirt during booking.
- A photographic array containing Arzola's booking photo (the only photo showing a gray shirt) was shown to the victim, who immediately identified Arzola by facial features, hair, complexion, and eyes.
- The Commonwealth obtained a court order for a buccal swab from Arzola and the victim provided a voluntary DNA sample; lab testing compared the unknown bloodstain on Arzola’s shirt to both known profiles.
- DNA testing of 16 loci on the bloodstain matched the victim and excluded Arzola; trial convictions for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery followed.
- On appeal the defendant challenged (1) the photographic identification as impermissibly suggestive and (2) the DNA analysis of the lawfully seized shirt as a warrantless search requiring probable cause; the SJC affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Arzola's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eyewitness ID suggestiveness (gray shirt in array) | Array fillers were similar; victim testified he identified by face/hair/eyes, not shirt | Identification was tainted because Arzola was the only photo showing a gray shirt matching victim’s description | Denied suppression; array not impermissibly suggestive and ID credited to facial features |
| Seizure of shirt | Plain-view seizure during lawful booking; incriminating nature immediately apparent | Seizure unlawful (argued below) | Judge found lawful plain-view seizure (not contested on appeal) |
| DNA analysis of lawfully seized evidence — was a warrant required? | DNA profiling of unknown blood limited to identification (16 loci) is like fingerprint analysis and is not a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant | DNA testing intrudes on privacy and thus is a search that required a warrant/probable cause | DNA analysis limited to identification of unknown source is not a constitutionally cognizable search; no warrant required |
| Scope & future limits of holding | Testing here limited to identity/sex using CODIS loci; use limited to identifying source | Concern that DNA can reveal sensitive genetic/medical/familial info | Court confines ruling to present loci and identification-only use; would revisit if loci or uses yield more personal information |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Perkins, 450 Mass. 834 (Mass. 2008) (standard of review and suppression framework for identification challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Cavitt, 460 Mass. 617 (Mass. 2011) (due process test for unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Miles, 420 Mass. 67 (Mass. 1995) (eyewitness identification/suppression principles)
- Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (Mass. 2009) (similarity of fillers in photographic arrays)
- Commonwealth v. Montez, 450 Mass. 736 (Mass. 2008) (generic clothing feature in photo array not necessarily suggestive)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 399 Mass. 201 (Mass. 1987) (victim’s explanation can neutralize distinctiveness of an array feature)
- Commonwealth v. Varney, 391 Mass. 34 (Mass. 1984) (balancing law-enforcement burdens against privacy interests)
- Commonwealth v. Robles, 423 Mass. 62 (Mass. 1996) (no warrant required to chemically analyze lawfully seized clothing)
- Boroian v. Mueller, 616 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010) (DNA profile as genetic fingerprint; limited to identification)
- Raynor v. State, 440 Md. 71 (Md. 2014) (DNA testing of identifying loci comparable to fingerprint testing)
- State v. Athan, 160 Wash. 2d 354 (Wash. 2007) (no expectation of privacy in discarded genetic material)
- United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (discussion of loci and privacy implications)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. 2013) (DNA loci used for identification do not reveal genetic traits; deciding limits of arrestee DNA collection)
- United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2012) (contrasting rule holding DNA extraction from clothing implicated privacy; discussed and distinguished)
- Commonwealth v. Bly, 448 Mass. 473 (Mass. 2007) (no expectation of privacy in abandoned items used to obtain known DNA samples)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (digital data on cell phones generally requires warrant; cited for privacy/technology limits)