Garcia-Torres v. State
2011 Ind. LEXIS 575
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Garcia-Torres was convicted of rape, attempted rape, and two burglaries and sentenced to 36 years.
- Police obtained a cheek swab for DNA from Garcia-Torres after he was in custody and previously confessed to some actions.
- The trial court suppressed the confessions due to inadequate Miranda translation but admitted DNA evidence.
- Garcia-Torres challenged the DNA swab as an unlawful search and the consent as involuntary; the State asserted consent was valid.
- Indiana Supreme Court analyzed Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution (Article 1, Section 11) to determine whether a cheek swab is a search and whether consent was valid.
- The majority upheld the conviction, concluding the cheek swab constitutes a search but was validly consented to, under Indiana law, and that a Pirtle advisement was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a cheek swab a search under the Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution? | Garcia-Torres argued the swab is a search. | State contends swab is not a compulsory search, or requires separate warrant. | Swab is a search under both constitutions; analysis proceeds on consent. |
| Was Garcia-Torres's consent to the cheek swab voluntary? | Garcia-Torres contends consent was involuntary. | Consent given in context of custody and cooperation; voluntariness supported. | Consent was voluntary; no Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Was a Pirtle warning required before the DNA swab? | Garcia-Torres entitled to counsel before consenting to search. | Pirtle applies; nor required for minimal intrusion. | Pirtle advisement not required here; intrusion deemed slight under Indiana law. |
| Does Indiana law provide greater protection than the federal Constitution for DNA swabs? | Indiana Constitution requires counsel advisory under Pirtle. | Consent allowed; no extended protections beyond federal baseline. | Under Indiana law, advisory to consult counsel is required; however, the majority concluded consent valid; (disposition reflects majority holding). |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (bodily intrusions and reasonableness of searches)
- Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973) (nail scrapings; search incident to arrest)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (bodily sample tests; searches under special needs)
- McClain v. State, 410 N.E.2d 1297 (1980) (DNA-related swab considered a search)
- Palmer v. State, 679 N.E.2d 887 (1997) (fingerprinting not a search when arrested)
- Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16 (1975) (custody right to counsel before consent to search; explicit waiver)
- Sims v. State, 413 N.E.2d 559 (1980) (explicit waiver of right to counsel before search)
- Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590 (2008) (Indiana Constitution independent search and seizure analysis)
- Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302 (1992) (custody and identification procedures)
- Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930 (2006) (searches without warrants are per se unreasonable; exceptions exist)