United States v. Aaron Schreiber
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14507
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dec. 2010: Archer Bank in Summit, IL, was robbed; DNA from items was entered into the state DNA index but no match was initially found.
- Apr. 16, 2011: Liquor store robbery occurred; witnesses said the robber fled in a black Chevrolet Suburban; officers later stopped a matching Suburban carrying three occupants including Schreiber; officer observed a white hooded sweatshirt and loose cash in the vehicle.
- State prosecutors indicted Schreiber for the liquor-store armed robbery; after the indictment, while awaiting trial, state authorities collected a buccal DNA swab and uploaded it to the state DNA index.
- The DNA match linked Schreiber to a Dec. 2010 bank robbery; a federal grand jury then indicted him for the bank robbery.
- Schreiber moved in federal court to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing the original arrest lacked probable cause and the swab was fruit of an illegal arrest; the district court denied suppression, holding (inter alia) that a grand jury indictment conclusively establishes probable cause and that buccal swabs taken after valid arrest are booking procedures.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed: King and Kaley foreclosed Schreiber’s challenges, and no disputed material facts warranted an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-arrest buccal DNA | Swab was fruit of illegal arrest lacking probable cause; must be suppressed. | Taking buccal swabs after an arrest supported by probable cause is a reasonable booking procedure. | Admissible: Maryland v. King allows cheek swabs as booking procedures when arrest is supported by probable cause. |
| Effect of state-court suppression on federal use | State court found lack of probable cause; that should preclude federal use of the DNA. | Grand jury indictment is conclusive evidence of probable cause; state suppression does not bind federal court. | Indictment conclusively establishes probable cause under Kaley; federal court not bound by state court suppression. |
| Right to an evidentiary hearing on suppression motion | At minimum, district court should have held a hearing to resolve constitutionality of arrest. | No disputed material facts presented; hearing not required. | Denial of hearing was not an abuse of discretion because allegations lacked disputed material facts. |
| Ability to relitigate grand jury probable-cause finding | Grand jury finding may be tainted and should be reviewable if arrest was illegal. | A grand jury indictment fair on its face is conclusive; defendants cannot relitigate that determination. | Relitigation is foreclosed by Kaley and Calandra absent a claim that the indictment itself was invalid or tainted by fabrication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. 2013) (approving buccal-swab DNA collection as a reasonable booking procedure after an arrest supported by probable cause)
- Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090 (U.S. 2014) (an indictment fair on its face conclusively establishes probable cause and precludes judicial relitigation of that determination)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1974) (the exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (U.S. 2017) (addressed unlawful pretrial detention claims; court discussed limits on grand-jury effect but did not overrule Kaley/Calandra)