State v. Evans, 500 P.3d 811

Douglas Evans was arrested two days after Ted Kelbach was shot; police obtained a judge-signed warrant to collect Evans’s DNA via a buccal (cheek) swab.
Evans refused the swab, requested an attorney, then physically resisted; officers restrained him (handcuffs, leg irons, belly chain), several officers held him down, an officer pried his mouth open, and a technician then obtained the swab.
DNA testing linked Evans to a red 59FIFTY baseball cap found at the scene and as a possible contributor to DNA on a broken fence near the back door; additional evidence tied Evans to the vicinity and produced inculpatory statements and surveillance/cell-site evidence.
Evans moved to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing the officers used excessive force in obtaining the swab and that no statute authorized any force for a buccal-swab warrant; the district court denied suppression and a jury convicted him.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, rejecting both the Fourth Amendment and statutory arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether force used to obtain buccal swab was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment	Evans: Force (restraints, multiple officers, mouth pried open) was excessive and violated Fourth Amendment rights	State: Warrant was valid; officers faced active, dangerous resistance and used reasonable force to secure safety and effectuate the search	Court: Affirmed — burden on Evans to prove execution unreasonable; evidence showed active resistance and no injury or prolonged unnecessary force, so force was reasonable
Whether statutory authorization was required to use force to execute a buccal-swab warrant	Evans: Legislature’s statutes that permit force in certain contexts, and silence elsewhere, imply prohibition (expressio unius) on using force for buccal-swab warrants	State: Valid search warrant implicitly authorizes reasonable force when necessary; cited statutes do not displace the common-law/warrant execution framework	Court: Rejected Evans — no textual basis that statutes implicitly prohibit reasonable force; a valid warrant carries implicit authorization to use reasonable force when necessary

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (upholding buccal-swab DNA collection of arrestees as a routine booking procedure)
Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (balanced test for intrusions into bodily integrity; surgical removal found unreasonable)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness factors for excessive-force claims)
Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (execution-of-warrant manner generally left to officers’ discretion)
Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (2007) (officers may take reasonable actions to secure safety and ensure efficacy of a search)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (privacy and bodily integrity principles in involuntary bodily intrusions)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (search lawful at inception must also be reasonable in manner of execution)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (warrant issued by a neutral magistrate affords presumption of reasonableness)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the touchstone)
State v. Alverez, 147 P.3d 425 (Utah 2006) (Utah precedent evaluating force used to prevent ingestion of evidence)