559 P.3d 1099
Ariz.2024Background
- In 2015, Ian Mitcham was arrested for DUI, consented to a blood draw, and signed a form stating unclaimed blood would be destroyed after 90 days (it was not).
- A month after, a separate murder occurred; biological evidence at the scene produced a male DNA profile, which did not initially yield a CODIS match.
- Years later, familial DNA search revealed Mitcham's brother was closely related to the perpetrator’s DNA; police focused on Mitcham.
- Police used the 2015 DUI blood (not destroyed) without a warrant to extract Mitcham's DNA profile, which matched the crime scene DNA; subsequent court-warranted buccal swabs confirmed the match.
- Mitcham moved to suppress DNA evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation; trial court agreed, but the court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed.
Issues
| Issue | Mitcham’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does warrantless DNA profiling from retained DUI blood constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment? | Creating a DNA profile from the 2015 DUI blood is a separate, privacy-invading search not previously consented to. | Not a search—State lawfully possessed the blood and could analyze it for any purpose. | It is a Fourth Amendment search; extracting DNA exceeded the original DUI consent. |
| Was the search unreasonable and outside the scope of consent for the DUI blood draw? | DUI consent was only for testing alcohol/drugs, not DNA analysis years later for unrelated crimes. | Consent to the blood draw meant consent for any analysis, including DNA sequencing. | Search was unreasonable and outside the scope of consent; no generalized consent existed. |
| Should evidence be suppressed under the exclusionary rule? | Yes, as DNA was direct fruit of the unlawful search. | No, because inevitable discovery or independent source exceptions apply. | Suppression not required; DNA profile would have been inevitably discovered after felony convictions, due to statutory DNA collection. |
| Does the inevitable discovery exception apply via later felony convictions? | No inevitability—future felony convictions were speculative at the time of the search, not regular police work. | Upon felony conviction, DNA would be legally collected and profiled for law enforcement use regardless of the earlier illegal search. | Exception applied; later convictions mandate DNA collection, so evidence would have been found legally and inevitably. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mario W. v. Kaipio, 230 Ariz. 122 (2012) (distinguishing between collection and analysis of DNA samples as separate Fourth Amendment events)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (DNA sampling as part of routine booking for felonies generally reasonable, but did not address later analysis from old samples)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (establishing and explaining the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (independent source doctrine for evidence obtained by both lawful and unlawful means)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (explaining the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally required but serves to deter unlawful police conduct)