Varriale v. State
119 A.3d 824
Md.2015Background
- In July 2012 George Varriale voluntarily signed an Anne Arundel County Consent to Search Person form and provided saliva and penile swabs during a rape investigation; the form stated evidence "can be used in any future criminal prosecution."
- Laboratory testing excluded Varriale as the source of DNA from the rape victim; lab personnel nonetheless designated his profile a suspect sample and uploaded it to the county local DNA index (LDIS) without notifying Varriale.
- An automatic LDIS search produced a match to DNA from a 2008 unsolved commercial burglary; Varriale was indicted for burglary and moved to suppress the match evidence as beyond the scope of his consent and a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The trial court denied suppression; Varriale entered a conditional guilty plea to second-degree burglary and appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals (majority) affirmed the lower courts: because Varriale consented to the DNA collection without an express limitation, the State could retain and compare his DNA profile for unrelated investigations; the Fourth Amendment was not violated.
- A dissent argued the consent form and circumstances limited use to the rape investigation, that a broad post-exclusion database search was a separate, suspicionless search violating Katz principles, and urged reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Varriale) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourth Amendment applies to retention and use of a voluntarily provided DNA profile for unrelated investigations | The consent was limited to the rape investigation; using the profile for unrelated prosecutions exceeded scope and was a warrantless search | No express limitation was given; uploading and comparing a lawfully obtained profile is a "use" of evidence and does not implicate the Fourth Amendment | Held: Fourth Amendment does not preclude retention and use where consent contained no express limitation |
| Whether subsequent LDIS comparison exceeded the scope of consent | The automatic database comparison was a separate search beyond the authorized object of the consent form | The object of the search was identification; a reasonable person would expect identifying information (like DNA profiles) to be kept and compared like fingerprints | Held: Scope of consent measured objectively; absent express limitation, a reasonable person would expect identification use and retention |
| Whether a person retains a reasonable privacy interest in the identifying loci of a DNA profile once lawfully obtained | Varriale: He retained privacy rights after exclusion and the broad cold‑case search required at least suspicion or a warrant | State: Identifying DNA loci function like fingerprints; no reasonable expectation of privacy in those identifying markers once lawfully obtained | Held: No reasonable expectation of privacy in identifying DNA loci once lawfully obtained; subsequent comparisons do not trigger the Fourth Amendment under these facts |
| Whether consent must include explicit notice that DNA will be retained and run in database searches | Varriale: Absent explicit consent for indefinite retention/LDIS searching, use exceeded consent | State: No duty to explain retention; general consent to furnish evidence permits future investigative uses | Held: No constitutional requirement here that police explain indefinite retention or database comparison when suspect gives unqualified consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (DNA identification via buccal swab is akin to fingerprinting for identification in booking contexts)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness of what a typical person would understand)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- Raynor v. State, 440 Md. 71 (2014) (once state lawfully possesses DNA, subsequent testing of identifying loci does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2012) (retention and later testing of DNA from victim’s clothing implicated privacy interests; distinguished by the majority)
- Commonwealth v. Gaynor, 443 Mass. 245 (2005) (consent to provide biological samples for identification supports later use for identification beyond a single comparison)
- Wilson v. State, 132 Md.App. 510 (2000) (once DNA or fingerprints are in lawful police possession, re-testing for later investigations does not require fresh Fourth Amendment authorization)
- Pace v. State, 271 Ga. 829 (1999) (police not required to explain that submitted DNA may be retained and used in later prosecutions)