State of New Jersey v. Tariq S. Gathers
156 A.3d 1108
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant Tariq S. Gathers was indicted for weapons offenses after police found a revolver near the scene of reported gunfire and defendant was treated for a gunshot wound; officers allege defendant made statements implicating himself and the weapon.
- The State discovered no usable fingerprints, swabbed the handgun for DNA, and prepared those swabs for submission to the State Police CODIS lab.
- Defendant had a prior conviction that resulted in the State already having his DNA profile in CODIS.
- Eight months after the incident and while defendant was awaiting trial in county jail, the prosecutor moved (by certification consisting of hearsay) for a court order compelling a buccal swab from defendant for DNA comparison.
- The trial judge granted the order; the appellate division stayed the order, granted leave to appeal, and reversed the compelled buccal swab.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor's certification established probable cause to compel a buccal swab | Certification (hearsay) described weapon recovery, swabs taken from gun, defendant's statements and injury; that sufficed to justify court-ordered DNA extraction | Prior conviction means defendant's DNA profile already in CODIS; State did not show need for new sample; certification lacked personal-knowledge support | Reversed: hearsay-only certification did not establish probable cause; order was unreasonable |
| Whether a buccal swab at this stage is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and NJ Constitution | The State asserted a legitimate need to compare defendant's DNA to material from the gun for identification | The intrusion, though minor, is not incidental to arrest here; the State failed to show necessity and seeks the sample largely for convenience | Reversed: timing and lack of demonstrated need made the compelled swab unreasonable |
| Whether the DNA Act bars repeated collection or otherwise affects the court's authority to order a swab | The State suggested court-ordered collection may be authorized despite prior DNA collection | Defendant relied on the DNA Act's limits and the principle against repeated, unnecessary intrusions | Court assumed (without deciding) the DNA Act may permit court-ordered collection but held that even if authorized, the State must show need and probable cause before ordering a post-arrest, pre-conviction swab |
| What showing is required before ordering post-arrest/pre-conviction DNA extraction when defendant's DNA may already be in CODIS | N/A — State argued convenience and lab procedures justified obtaining fresh sample | Defendant argued State must first determine whether gun yields DNA and whether existing CODIS profile suffices for comparison | Held: State must show (1) probable cause that the seized item contains DNA and (2) that it has no other access to the accused’s DNA for comparison before ordering the intrusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (recognizes buccal swab of arrestee as reasonable incident to arrest in certain circumstances)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (searches and seizures judged by reasonableness balancing test)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (historical authority on searches incident to arrest)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (search incident to arrest justified by officer safety and other concerns)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (reasonableness test balancing privacy intrusion and government interest)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (reasonableness framework for searches)
- State v. O'Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 (describes buccal swab as a minor physical intrusion under NJ law)
- Gonzalez v. Ideal Tile Importing Co., Inc., 371 N.J. Super. 349 (certification must convey facts, not unsupported hearsay)