People v. Thomas
200 Cal. App. 4th 338
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Thomas was suspected in a series of residential burglaries (2006–2008).
- DNA was recovered in five burglaries; a sixth involved photo lineup identification.
- Police surveilled Thomas after an anonymous tip and stopped him on December 1, 2008 for traffic violations.
- During a PAS breath test, Thomas placed his mouth on the device’s mouthpiece and blew; he later consented to the test.
- Police preserved the mouthpiece for DNA testing, revealing a DNA profile linked to two burglaries and, with later arrest, to five total burglaries.
- Thomas was charged with six counts of first-degree residential burglary; he pled no contest to one count and received a 17-year sentence; suppression motion was denied on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA testing of saliva on the PAS mouthpiece was a Fourth Amendment search. | Thomas argues it was a search requiring a warrant. | Thomas contends the saliva on a police-provided device is private soil, thus a search. | Not a search; abandonment of saliva on police device forecloses privacy interest. |
| Whether abandonment doctrine applies to saliva on a police device and limits privacy rights. | Thomas asserts abandonment requires conscious, voluntary relinquishment of privacy rights. | Thomas argues consent limits abandonment scope and DNA testing exceeds implied consent. | Abandonment applies; defendant had no legitimate privacy interest in the saliva on the mouthpiece. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gallego, 190 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (abandoned property lacks reasonable privacy interest; DNA testing of discarded material not a search)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1986) (privacy expectations in public conduct and location)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (framework for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (collection and analysis of private biological samples as separate searches)
- People v. Robinson, 47 Cal.4th 1104 (Cal. 2009) (DNA testing framed as identification; privacy considerations for DNA)
- Commonwealth v. Cabral, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 68 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (no reasonable privacy expectation in saliva discarded in public)
- Commonwealth v. Perkins, 883 N.E.2d 230 (Mass. 2008) (no privacy interest in a can used during interrogation)
- Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (U.S. 2001) (informed consent issues in drug testing; special needs analysis)
- State v. Binner, 131 Ore.App. 677 (Ore.App. 1994) (consent scope and abandonment in implied consent contexts)
- People v. Ayala, 24 Cal.4th 243 (Cal. 2000) (fingerprint-like treatment of discarded items)
- Piro v. State, 190 P.3d 905 (Idaho 2008) (no expectation of privacy in government-provided water bottle)
- Commonwealth v. Ewing, 854 N.E.2d 993 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (ruses in obtaining DNA samples not coercive where privacy is absent)
- LaGuerre, 29 A.D.3d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (soda tasting test as police-involved procedure with no privacy rights)