THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL EUGENE ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant.
No. S158528
Supreme Court of California
Jan. 25, 2010.
1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123
Cara DeVito, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves and Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler and Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorneys General, Michael Chamberlain, Stephanie A. Mitchell, Doris A. Calandra and Enid A. Camps, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
CHIN, J.-A jury convicted defendant Paul Eugene Robinson of five felony sexual offenses, all perpetrated against Deborah L. on August 25, 1994. Each was punishable by imprisonment in state prison for a maximum of eight
Once the statute of limitations for an offense expires without the commencement of prosecution, prosecution for that offense is forever time-barred. (Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607, 615-616 [156 L.Ed.2d 544, 123 S.Ct. 2446].)2 As relevant here, a prosecution for an offense commences when an arrest warrant is issued and “names or describes the defendant with the same degree of particularity required for [a] complaint.” (
In this case, on August 21, 2000,4 four days before the statute of limitations would have expired, the Sacramento County District Attorney
We granted review to decide (1) whether the issuance of a “John Doe” complaint or arrest warrant may timely commence a criminal action and thereby satisfy section 800‘s limitation period5; (2) whether an unknown suspect‘s DNA profile satisfies the “particularity” requirement for an arrest warrant; and (3) what remedy exists, if any, for the unlawful collection of genetic material under the 1998 version of the Act.6
For the reasons stated below, we conclude that, in cases in which the warrant identifies the perpetrator by his or her unique DNA profile only, the statute of limitations is satisfied if the prosecution is commenced by the filing of the “John Doe” arrest warrant within the limitations period.7 In reaching this conclusion, we find that an unknown suspect‘s unique DNA profile satisfies the “particularity” requirement for an arrest warrant. (
On August 25, 1994, 24-year-old Deborah L. awoke to find a male adult stranger standing in her bedroom doorway wearing gloves and holding a knife. He told Deborah to be quiet and that he was there “to get some pussy.” When she screamed, he called her a “white bitch” and threatened to kill her if she did not shut up. Based on his distinctive voice, his skin color, and his silhouette, Deborah thought the man was African-American.8
The man climbed on top of Deborah and held the knife to her chest; she cut her hand when she instinctively grabbed at the knife. The man directed Deborah to cover her face with a pillow. He then fondled her breasts, placed his mouth on her vagina, inserted his fingers in her vagina and rectum, and raped her. After losing and regaining an erection, he raped her a second time; this time he withdrew his penis, ejaculated on her legs, and rubbed his semen on her stomach. As the man dressed, he said he would kill Deborah if she looked at him. Once he was gone, she called 911.9
Police officers promptly took Deborah to a medical facility where a rape kit was prepared, vaginal swabs were collected, and her cut hand was stitched. The physician assistant who collected the vaginal swabs saw sperm on them. Jill Spriggs, an assistant criminal laboratory director for the California Department of Justice (Department), also found semen present on a swab collected from Deborah‘s vagina. In early August of 2000, Ms. Spriggs assayed that sperm to generate a genetic profile of the unknown male suspect as determined by the presence or absence of markers at 13 distinct DNA loci. Ms. Spriggs then used statistics to estimate, with respect to three racial groups, the probability that more than one person would harbor that same series of markers.
The parties stipulated that, prior to September 2000, defendant‘s blood had been collected, his DNA was profiled at 13 loci, and his profile had been entered into the Department‘s offender database. A Department criminalist testified the database is kept in the hope of matching DNA samples from
Four days before the six-year statute of limitations would have expired, a felony complaint was filed against “John Doe, unknown male,” describing him by his 13-loci DNA profile. The next day, the trial court found probable cause in the complaint, and an arrest warrant issued for “John Doe,” incorporating by reference that DNA profile. As relevant here, “John Doe” was identified as an “unknown male with Short Tandem Repeat (STR) Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Profile at the following Genetic Locations, using the Cofiler and Profiler Plus Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) amplification kits: D3S1358 (15, 15), D16S539 (9, 10), THO1 (7, 7), TPOX (6, 9), CSF1PO (10, 11), D7S820 (8, 11), vWa (18, 19), FGA (22, 24), D8S1179 (12, 15), D21S11 (28, 28), D18S51 (20, 20), D5S818 (8, 13), D13S317 (10, 11), with said Genetic Profile being unique, occurring in approximately 1 in 21 sextillion of the Caucasian population, 1 in 650 quadrillion of the African American population, 1 in 420 sextillion of the Hispanic population.”
In September, a criminalist who searched the Dеpartment‘s offender database using the DNA profile Ms. Spriggs had developed in the Deborah L. case generated a “cold hit” match between the 13-loci DNA profile in the John Doe arrest warrant and defendant Robinson‘s profile in the state‘s DNA database. Based on the match, an amended arrest warrant with Robinson‘s name issued; it was executed on September 15.
After defendant‘s arrest on September 15, his blood was collected, and Ms. Spriggs conducted an independent DNA analysis using that new blood sample. Comparing defendant‘s DNA profile from that blood with the DNA profile obtained earlier from the evidentiary semen from the vaginal swab, Ms. Spriggs found the two profiles matched “at all 13 loci.” Based on her statistical calculations made to determine the frequency of a genetic profile in a random unrelated population, Ms. Spriggs testified that she estimated that the probability that two people would share identical DNA patterns at each of the 13 loci tested is one in 650 quadrillion (650 followed by 15 zeros) in the African-American population, one in six sextillion (6 followed by 21 zeros) in the Caucasian population, and one in 33 sextillion (33 followed by 21 zeros) in the Hispanic population.10 Ms. Spriggs testified that there had been no reported cases of two people who are not identical twins matching at all 13 loci.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Applicability of the Federal Exclusionary Rule to Unlawful Collection of Defendant‘s Genetic Material Under the Act
1. Introduction
The parties agree defendant‘s March 2, 1999 blood sample was collected in violation of the Act as it was originally enacted. Defеndant contends the federal exclusionary rule is the appropriate “remedy to apply to the police personnel errors that occurred in this case.” We disagree.
2. Background of the Act
The Act became effective January 1, 1999. (Stats. 1998, ch. 696, § 4.)13 It created a databank to assist “criminal justice and law enforcement agencies
In 1999, the Act required, in relevant part, that any person convicted of a specified crime, referred to as a “qualifying offense” (former § 295, subd. (e)), had to provide, among other samples and impressions, “two specimens of blood” for “law enforcement identification analysis.” (Former § 296, subd. (a)(1).) The Department‘s DNA laboratory was given responsibility for implementing the Act and managing and administering the state‘s DNA database and databank identification program. (Former § 295, subds. (d), (e).) In part, the Act required the Department to “perform DNA analysis” of the collected specimens, to save the biological samples, and “store, compile, correlate, compare, maintain, and use DNA and forensic identification profiles and records.” (Former § 295.1, subds. (a), (c).)
The Act gave state and local law enforcement and correctional officials responsibility for collecting the biological samples and impressions from qualified offenders. (Former §§ 295, subd. (f)(1), 295.1, subds. (a), (d), 296.1, subd. (a).) As enacted, it required that collection of those specimens be done “as soon as administratively practicable,” regardless of the place of confinement. (Former § 296, subd. (b).)
Subdivision (a)(1) of former section 296 listed as offenders subject to collection of specimens, samples, and print impressions “[a]ny person who is convicted of, or pleads guilty or no contest to, any of the following crimes, regardless of sentence imposed or disposition rendered ....” Among the listed offеnses was felony spousal abuse (§ 273.5) and felony assault or battery (§ 245). (Former § 296, subd. (a)(1)(D), (F).) Others subject to the collection requirements included “[a]ny person ... who is convicted of a felony offense of assault or battery in violation of Section ... 245 ..., and who is committed to ... any institution under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Youth Authority where he or she was confined ....” (Former § 296, subd. (a)(2).)14 The Act provided that “[a] person whose DNA profile has been included in the databank pursuant to this chapter shall have his or her information and materials expunged from the data bank when ...
3. Relevant Factual Background
At the time the March 2, 1999 blood sample was collected and when that sample was entered into the state databank, law enforcement personnel mistakenly believed defendant had been convicted of a “qualifying” offense under the Act.
The Act was enacted while defendant was in custody at Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (the Center) serving his sentence for two misdemeanor convictions and awaiting transfer to state prison based on a parole revocation with regard to a prior conviction for felony first degree burglary for which defendant had served a term of imprisonment.15 Soon after the Act went into effect, an unknown person in the Center‘s records department completed a DNA testing requirement form in which defendant was mistakenly identified as a prisoner with a qualifying offense based on his 1994 conviction for spousal abuse.16 As a result of that mistake, a sample of defendant‘s blood was drawn on March 2, 1999.
The March 2, 1999 blood sample was submitted to the Department‘s laboratory database section where it underwent a Department-initiated, nonstatutory verification process to confirm a prisoner‘s qualified offender status. In July 1999, during that verification process, a Department employee noticed
Defendant filed a section 1538.5 motion to suppress the March 2, 1999 blood sample and the resulting DNA test evidence. The motion was denied. We include a summary of testimony presented at the suppression hearing in our discussion regarding whether the federal exclusionary rule applies to the law enforcement conduct that led to the mistaken collection of the March 2, 1999 blood sample and its inclusion in the database.
4. Remedy for Unlawful Collection of Genetic Material Under the Act
Defendant contends the DNA test evidence admitted at trial should have been excluded because its collection was not authorized in 1999. “Pursuant to article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, a trial court may exclude evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 only if exclusion is mandated by the federal Constitution.” (People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, 934 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 524, 863 P.2d 769].) Our Constitution thus prohibits employing an exclusionary rule that is more expansive than that articulated by the United States Supreme Court. (People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 129 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887].) For the reasons stated below, we conclude the nonconsensual extraction of defendant‘s blood for the March 2, 1999 sample, although a state statutory violation under the 1999 version of the Act, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, even assuming that the nonconsensual extraction of defendant‘s blood on March 2, 1999, did violate the Fourth Amendment, the law enforcement personnel errors that led to the mistaken collection of that March 2, 1999 blood sample would not have triggered the federal exclusionary rule. Accordingly, exclusion of the evidence obtained from that sample is not an available remedy for defendant.
Invasions of the body, including nonconsensual extractions of an incarcerated felon‘s blood for DNA profiling, are searches entitled to the protections of the Fourth Amendment. (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’
“Reasonableness ... is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances” (Ohio v. Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 39 [136 L.Ed.2d 347, 117 S.Ct. 417]), and “whether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard ‘is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual‘s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.‘” (Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, supra, 515 U.S. at pp. 652-653; see also Samson v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 843, 848 [165 L.Ed.2d 250, 126 S.Ct. 2193] (Samson).)
The United States Supreme Court has explained that an intrusion caused by a blood test is not significant because such tests are “‘commonplace in these days of periodic physical examinations and experience with them teaches that the quantity of blood extracted is minimal, and that for most people the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain.‘” (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 625.) Moreover, “convicted criminals do not enjoy the same expectation of privacy that nonconvicts” have (People v. Adams (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 243, 258 [9 Cal.Rptr.3d 170]) with respect to their identities and their bodies. (Hudson v. Palmer (1984) 468 U.S. 517, 530 [82 L.Ed.2d 393, 104 S.Ct. 3194]; Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 441 U.S. 520, 558 [60 L.Ed.2d 447, 99 S.Ct. 1861]; People v. King (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1374-1375 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 220] (King).) “That the gathering of DNA information requires the drawing of blood rather than inking and rolling a person‘s fingerprints does not elevate the intrusion upon the [defendant‘s] Fourth Amendment interests to a level beyond minimal.” (Rise v. Oregon (9th Cir. 1995) 59 F.3d 1556, 1560, fn. omitted; see also Nicholas v. Goord (2d Cir. 2005) 430 F.3d 652, 669 [“In the prison context, where inmates are routinely subject to medical procedures, including blood draws, and where their expectation of bodily privacy, while intact, is diminished [citation], the intrusiveness of a blood draw is even further minimized.” (fn. omitted)]; U.S. v. Kincade (9th Cir. 2004) 379 F.3d 813, 837 (Kincade).) Accordingly, courts repeatedly have upheld our state Act and the similar federal act, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (Pub.L. No. 106-546 (Dec. 19, 2000) 114 Stat. 2726) for qualified offenders as a reasonable law enforcement tool for solving crimes. (Kincade, supra, 379 F.3d at p. 836; see also People v. Adams, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at pp. 255-259; Alfaro v. Terhune (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 492, 505 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 197] (Alfaro).)
In response to challenges to the amendment that authorized collection in California from all adult felons, several state appellate courts have concluded that “the extraction of biological samples from an adult felon is not an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” (In re Calvin S. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 443, 447 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 559]; see also People v. Travis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1281-1290 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 177]; People v. Johnson (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1168 [43 Cal.Rptr.3d 587]; Alfaro, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at pp. 505-506; King, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1378.) We agree with our state appellate courts that the “nonconsensual extraction of biological samples for identification purposes does implicate [federal] constitutional interests” (Alfaro, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 505), but that such nonconsensual extraction of biological samples from adult felons is reasonable because “those convicted of serious crimes have a diminished expectation of privacy and the intrusions authorized by the Act are minimal” while “the Act serves compelling governmental interests,” including “‘the overwhelming public interest in prosecuting crimes accurately.’ [Citation.] A minimally intrusive methodology that can serve to avoid erroneous convictions and to bring to light and rectify erroneous convictions that have occurred manifestly serves a compelling public interest.” (Id. at pp. 505-506; see also In re Calvin S., supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 449 [nonconsensual extraction of biological
The fact that defendant Robinson‘s blood was collected in violation of our state law at the time does not alter our Fourth Amendment analysis. That law was more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment and, for Fourth Amendment purposes, it is not dispositive that a search and seizure was not permissible under state law. The United States Supreme Court has held that, as far as the federal Constitution is concerned, “whether state law authorized the search [is] irrelevant.” (Virginia v. Moore (2008) 553 U.S. 164, 171 [170 L.Ed.2d 559, 128 S.Ct. 1598] (Moore); accord, Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 [135 L.Ed.2d 89, 116 S.Ct. 1769]; California v. Greenwood (1988) 486 U.S. 35, 43-44 [100 L.Ed.2d 30, 108 S.Ct. 1625]; Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58 [17 L.Ed.2d 730, 87 S.Ct. 788].) The Supreme Court explained that the Fоurth Amendment is not historically understood “as a redundant guarantee of whatever limits on search and seizure legislatures might have enacted” (Moore, supra, 553 U.S. at p. 168), and that its meaning does not change “with local law enforcement practices,” which “‘vary from place to place and from time to time.‘” (Id. at p. 172.) While states remain “free ‘to impose higher standards on searches and seizures than required by the federal Constitution‘” (id. at p. 171), a state‘s “choice of a more restrictive option does not render the less restrictive ones unreasonable, and hence unconstitutional” (id. at p. 174). With regard to the issue presented in Moore, the court held that “warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the Constitution, and that while States are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state restrictions do not alter the Fourth Amendment‘s protections.” (Id. at p. 176; see also Samson, supra, 547 U.S. at p. 855 [holding the 4th Amend. does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a search of a parolee without any suspicion of that parolee while finding “of little relevance” the fact that some states and the federal government require a level of individualized suspicion before searching a parolee].)
The reasoning in Moore and Samson applies here, where virtually every court to consider the constitutionality of a DNA statute has upheld it against a Fourth Amendment challenge, but the list of qualifying or predicate offenses has varied from state to state over time. (Moore, supra, 553 U.S. at
Having decided that a lawfully convicted and incarcerated felon, such as defendant, does not have a Fourth Amendment right to prevent state authorities from collecting a blood sample for DNA profiling, we conclude that the March 2, 1999 blood sample and the DNA test evidence obtained as a result of that sample were properly admitted into evidence at defendant‘s trial.
The exclusionary rule applies only “where its deterrence benefits outweigh its ‘substantial social costs.‘” (Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott (1998) 524 U.S. 357, 363 [141 L.Ed.2d 344, 118 S.Ct. 2014], quoting United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 907 [82 L.Ed.2d 677, 104 S.Ct. 3405]; accord, Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. 1, 13 [131 L.Ed.2d 34, 115 S.Ct. 1185]; see also People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 755-756 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 734, 968 P.2d 445].) The United States Supreme Court has cautioned that “[s]uppression of evidence . . . has always been our last resort.” (Hudson, supra, 547 U.S. at p. 591.) In Hudson, the court emphasized that the exclusionary rule‘s “‘costly toll’ upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application.” (Ibid.)
In Herring v. United States (2009) 555 U.S. ___ [172 L.Ed.2d 496, 129 S.Ct. 695] (Herring), the United State Supreme Court explained that “[t]o trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence.” (Id. at p. ___ [129 S.Ct. at p. 702].)
The facts in Herring involved an officer who reasonably, but mistakenly, believed there was an outstanding warrant for Herring. When Herring apрeared at the sheriff‘s department to get something from his impounded truck, investigator Anderson recognized him and asked a county clerk to check for
In agreeing with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the challenged evidence was admissible, the Supreme Court stated, “In light of our repeated holdings that the deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system, e.g., [United States v. ]Leon, [supra, ]468 U. S., at 909-910, we conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not ‘pay its way.’ Id., at 907-908, n. 6 (internal quotations marks omitted). In such a case, the criminal should not ‘go free because the constable has blundered.’ People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926) (opinion of the Court by Cardozo, J.).” (Herring, supra, 555 U.S. at p. ___ [129 S.Ct. at p. 704].)
The parties before us agree the violations of the Act in defendant‘s case were unintentional mistakes made during the early implementation of the Act. The People characterize those mistakes as “non-deliberate, non-flagrant, and non-systemic“; in other words, as “‘non-culpable negligence, at most.‘” On the other hand, defendant contends the mistaken collection of the March 2, 1999 blood sample was the result of a “cascading series of errors” that were “indicative of a systemic breakdown,” the order to draw blood was not attenuated from its seizure from defendant, and “the search in Herring wаs limited to the suspect‘s clothes and vehicle, whereas the seizure here occurred from [defendant‘s] very body.”
We first note that nothing in Herring supports defendant‘s suggestion that whether or not the exclusionary rule is triggered in a particular case should depend upon whether “an error results in a seizure of evidence from a suspect‘s body rather than from the suspect‘s ‘person.‘” We reject defendant‘s claim that “the seizure of biological material from [his] very body affects the determination of whether the police conduct here was more culpable or reckless than mere negligence.”
We next note that the Supreme Court‘s general holding regarding what conduct triggers the exclusionary rule does not focus on the issue of
On appeal, we uphold any express or implied factual findings of the trial court that are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1301 [248 Cal.Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221].) Here, in ruling the March 2, 1999 blood sample and DNA test evidence were admissible, the trial court found that the mistakes that led to the unlawful collection of defendant‘s blood were made because correctional staff was under pressure to immediately implement a newly enacted law that was complex and confusing, that the motivation for the collection of the March 2, 1999 blood sample “was a good faith belief, possibly based on a negligent analysis by someone, that the defendant was a qualified offender and that the law directed his sample to be obtained.” The trial court also found that, while the Department did not act in a “perfect manner,” it acted in a “responsible” and “conscientious” manner in “trying to keep [its] errors to a very low level.” The following evidence presented at the motion to supprеss supports the trial court‘s findings that the errors in this case were negligent rather than deliberate, reckless, or systemic.
The director of the Department‘s Bureau of Forensic Services Toxicology Laboratory (the Director) testified that he worked “full time” on implementation of the Act as of December 1998. In the early months of that assignment, he reviewed the legislation, consulted the Attorney General, and developed materials that he delivered to various locations. He later created a specific information bulletin that was distributed to approximately 600 law enforcement agencies throughout the state. The Director quickly worked to disseminate information about the Act because the Department had to inform law enforcement agencies “what they needed to do to be able to provide us with the new samples.” His typical presentations included information regarding “what were qualifying offenses. He also discussed how they would decide what the process was to be able to find out whether they were qualifying offenses.” In that regard, the Director advised law enforcement personnel to use the Department‘s “automated criminal history system” to “pull up the rap sheet” in order to determine whether an individual in custody had a qualifying felony offense and how to distinguish whether “wobblers” were misdemeanor or felony offenses.
The Director gave at least 36 presentations throughout California during 1999; during those training sessions, law enforcement personnel occasionally
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Konzak testified that he helped establish the FBI‘s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which is software that compares qualifying offender samples to profiles collected at a crime scene. Testifying as an expert, Konzak noted that, as to all state and federal government databanks, “for offenders there‘s a qualifying requirement for a conviction or adjudication of some kind.” Konzak explained that California‘s DNA databank employees were trained regarding “who are qualifying offenders” by “on-the-job” training and in training sessions. He admitted the Act initially was “administratively very complicated“; because it greatly expanded the number of qualifying offenders, it required the rapid hiring of many new analysts, and the implementation process required the DNA databank laboratory to “call in to our legal unit almost every day about some issue or another.” He refuted any suggestion that the Department had a systemic or deliberate policy of entering nonqualifying profiles into its database by noting that the draconian sanction for such a policy could be expulsion from the national crime-solving index and removal of the CODIS software from a noncompliant laboratory. Konzak noted that, although in 1999 and 2000 there was no statutory requirement for the DNA laboratory to confirm that an individual had been appropriately identified as a qualifying offender,22 the laboratory did so in an “attempt to do the best we could to
Deputy Sheriff Lawrence Ortiz testified that in February 1999 he was trained regarding how to identify and collect DNA samples pursuant to the recently passed Act from individuals at the Center who had been convicted of sex and violent offenses. He then began training the Center‘s civilian records officers on how to identify qualified offenders. Ortiz testified that the staff was alerted about the system‘s “capabilities to look for qualifying” offenses, that only certain felony offenses constituted qualifying offenses, and that the system and CLETS “read[] out felony or misdemeanor depending on the severity of the conviction.” He said staff “early on” exhibited “confusion” about what constituted a qualifying offense, and that even in 2003, the year he testified, “there‘s an occasional question as to [the] qualifications.” Ortiz said he and the staff would “err on the side of caution” and treat juvenile adjudications as nonqualifying offenses if they resulted in a juvenile hall disposition only. He noted that early implementation of the Act at the Center resulted in “[b]orderline chaos” because he and his large staff were under pressure to quickly identify offenders and complete the collection kits provided by the Department. At the time defendant‘s blood was collected, approximately 16 records officers were working in four shifts day and night to determine whether inmates at the Center had qualifying offenses. Ortiz relied on his staff‘s indication that there was a qualifying offense without verifying that assessment because he lacked the time to “personally validate” each determination. However, whenever an inmate indicated he did not believe he was а qualified offender, Ortiz would research the issue himself. Ortiz conceded that, in March of 1999, if a rap sheet indicated that a person “had a [section] 245 as a juvenile, sent to juvenile hall,” he “might possibly” have mistakenly collected a DNA blood sample from that individual. At the time defendant‘s March 2, 1999 blood sample was collected, Ortiz believed defendant “did in fact have a qualifying offense.” He believed everybody on his staff “knew the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony [section] 273.5” and that the employee who qualified defendant‘s section 273.5 offense therefore must have believed it was a felony conviction.
We agree with the trial court that, although errors were made during the early implementation of the Act, law enforcement employees conscientiously
Here, as in Herring, we hold that the challenged errors do not, by themselves, “require the ‘extreme sanction of exclusion.‘” (Herring, supra, 555 U.S. at p. ___ [129 S.Ct. at p. 700].) We agree with the trial court that the law enforcement personnel errors in this case were the result of negligence, “rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements,” that the unlawful collection of genetic material under the Act was not “sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it,” and that the law enforcement personnel were not sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. (Herring, supra, 555 U.S. at pp. ___, ___ [129 S.Ct. at pp. 704, 702].)23
We have analyzed the nonconsensual extraction of defendant‘s blood for the March 2, 1999 blood sample as a state statutory violation that did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and, alternatively, as an assumed federal constitutional violation. In either case, we agree with the Court of Appeal that “the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to suppress the [blood and DNA test] evidence in this case.”
B. Satisfaction of Constitutional and Statutory Particularity Requirements with a Warrant Identifying a Person to be Arrested by a Description of His Unique DNA Profile
On August 21, 2000, a complaint was filed, and one day later, a corresponding arrest warrant issued against “John Doe, unknown male” for charges based on the sexual assault against Deborah L. on August 25, 1994.
Defendant contends the prosecution was not commenced within the six-year statute of limitations because “the ‘particularity’ requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, our state Constitution‘s article I, section 13, and
1. Relevant Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
As relevant here, our statute of limitations provides that “prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for eight years or more shall be commenced within six years after commission of the offense” (
The
2. The Particularity Requirement
Defendant contends a John Doe arrest warrant accompanied by a DNA genetic profile does not constitute “a means of description ‘reasonable to the circumstances‘” because, rather than “describ[ing]” the person to be arrested, it only “identifies a defendant by the use of a fictitious name without any description whatsoever” and therefore does not describe that person “with sufficient certainty.” Defendant argues that a fictitious name or a John Doe name is insufficient to identify anyone, and therefore is insufficient to identify anyone with particularity.
Under both federal and state law, an accusatory pleading or arrest warrant may issue with a fictitious name provided it names or describes the person being charged with reasonable certainty. (See, e.g., Cabell, supra, 153 U.S. at p. 85 [an arrest warrant “must truly name [the person charged], or describe him sufficiently to identify him“]; People v. Montoya, supra, 255 Cal.App.2d at pp. 142-143; Ernst v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 710, 718 [163 Cal.Rptr. 861].) As the court in Montoya explained, “[w]here a name that would reasonably identify the subject to be arrested cannot be provided, then sоme other means reasonable to the circumstances must be used to assist in the identification of the subject of the warrant . . . .” (Montoya, supra, 255 Cal.App.2d at p. 142, italics added, citing U.S. v. Swanner (E.D.Tenn. 1964) 237 F.Supp. 69, 71, see also Blocker v. Clark (1906) 126 Ga. 484 [54 S.E. 1022]; 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure (3d ed. 1996 & Supp. 2003) § 35.1(g).)26
We first consider whether the arrest warrant that issued in this case satisfied the Fourth Amendment‘s requirement, as well as our state Constitution‘s requirement, that a warrant must particularly describe the person to be seized. The relevant language of
In the context of the
However, a warrant “need only be reasonably specific” (U.S. v. Hayes (9th Cir. 1986) 794 F.2d 1348, 1354), and “the specificity required ‘varies depending on the circumstances of the case and the type of items involved.‘” (U.S. v. Rude (9th Cir. 1996) 88 F.3d 1538, 1551; see also U.S. v. Bridges (9th Cir. 2003) 344 F.3d 1010, 1016; U. S. v. Jones (7th Cir. 1995) 54 F.3d 1285, 1289-1290.) The constitutional and statutory requirements of particularity are satisfied if the warrant “imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized.” (Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238, 249 [118 Cal.Rptr. 166, 529 P.2d 590].) The requirement of reasonable particularity “is a flexible concept, reflecting the degree of detail available from the facts known to the affiant and presented to the issuing magistrate.” (Tockgo, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 640; see United States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 108-109 [13 L.Ed.2d 684, 85 S.Ct. 741]; Spinelli v. U.S. (8th Cir. 1967) 382 F.2d 871, 886, revd. on other grounds (1969) 393 U.S. 410 [21 L.Ed.2d 637, 89 S.Ct. 584].) Here, at the time the John Doe arrest warrant issued and the John Doe complaint was filed in this case, there was
In the context of a search of a place, the Fourth Amendment requirement of particularity and our state statutory particularity requirement in section 152527 are met “if the description is such that the officer . . . can with reasonable еffort ascertain and identify the place intended.” (Steele v. United States No. 1 (1925) 267 U.S. 498, 503 [69 L.Ed. 757, 45 S.Ct. 414]; see People v. Coulon (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 148, 152 [78 Cal.Rptr. 95].) While a search warrant must describe items to be seized with particularity sufficient to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging in a person‘s belongings, the test for determining the validity of a warrant considers “whether any reasonable probability exists that the officers may mistakenly search another premise.” (U.S. v. Mann (9th Cir. 2004) 389 F.3d 869, 876.)
State courts that have considered the validity of a warrant that described the suspect by his DNA profile have concluded that a unique DNA profile qualifies as a reasonable means of identifying the subject of a warrant or complaint when that DNA profile is the best description available. (See People v. Martinez (N.Y.App.Div. 2008) 52 A.D.3d 68 [855 N.Y.S.2d 522] (Martinez); State v. Danley (Ct.Com.Pl. 2006) 2006 Ohio 3585 [853 N.E.2d 1224] (Danley); State v. Davis (2005) 2005 WI App 98 [281 Wis.2d 118, 698 N.W.2d 823]; State v. Dabney (2003) 2003 WI App 108 [264 Wis.2d 843, 663 N.W.2d 366] (Dabney); cf. State v. Belt (2008) 285 Kan. 949 [179 P.3d 443, 450] (Belt) [approving the practice “in the abstract,” but affirming dismissal where charging documents did not set forth suspect‘s unique DNA profile].) For the reasons stated below, we find these authorities persuasive.
A warrant or complaint “is an accusation against a person, and not against a name,” and “‘[w]hen the name is unknown, the person may be identified with “the best description” available.‘” (Danley, supra, 853 N.E.2d at p. 1227, quoting, inter alia, Dabney, supra, 663 N.W.2d 366; see Commonwealth v. Laventure (2006) 586 Pa. 348 [894 A.2d 109, 116, fn. 7] [When a name cannot be provided, “‘some other means reasonable to the circumstances’ may be used to assist in the identification.]; 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 302.)
The Dabney court correctly noted that “case law suggests that the complaint and warrant satisfy the sufficiency standard when the description
In Belt, the Supreme Court of Kansas recently considered whether a John Doe arrest warrant that describes the suspect by a unique marker profile on a DNA autoradiograph identifies the suspect with sufficient particularity and reasonable certainty to satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its state‘s statutory codification of that constitutional standard with regard to Kansas arrest warrants (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2304(1)). (Belt, supra, 179 P.3d at pp. 449-450.) Quoting Cabell, supra, 153 U.S. at page 85, Belt first noted that “there is precedent to support the contention that a warrant need not provide the name of a suspect, so long as it describes the suspect ‘sufficiently to identify’ him or her.” (Belt, supra, 179 P.3d at p. 449.) Although the state conceded that the particular warrants at issue in Belt contained insufficient identifying information because, at most, they “mentioned only DNA loci common to all humans” (ibid.), Belt stated that, “in the abstract,” it agreed with “the proposition that a warrant identifying the person to be arrested for a sexual offense by description of the person‘s unique DNA profile, or incorporating by reference an affidavit containing such a unique profile, can satisfy constitutional and statutory particularity requirements.” (Id. at p. 450.)
For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that the arrest warrant in question, which described the defendant by his 13-loci DNA profile and included an explanation that the profile had a random match probability such that there was essentially no chance of its being duplicated in the human population except in the case of genetically identical sibling, complied with the mandate of our federal Constitution that the person seized be described with particularity.28 (Maryland v. Garrison, supra, 480 U.S. at
We now turn to the specific particularity requirement set forth in
In People v. Erving (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 283 [11 Cal.Rptr. 203], the indictment charged “Jane Doe (Charlene)” and described her as “female Negro, 39 years, 5‘7“, weight 165 pounds, olive complexion.” (Id. at p. 284.) The court found meritless defendant‘s argument that the indictment was “defective in that the person allegedly indicted was not adequately named or described in the indictment so that she could be identified,” although the prosecution conceded that the indictment contained an erroneous weight (165 pounds instead of 110 pounds) and there was some dispute regarding her complexion. (Id. at p. 290.) Citing Erving, the court in People v. McCrae (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 725 [32 Cal.Rptr. 500], similarly rejected an argument that “the accused was not adequately named or described so that he could be identified as the defendant herein.” (Id. at p. 728.) In McCrae, the defendant was charged by the fictitious name of “John Doe ‘Bill‘” and described as “Male Negro, 30-35 yrs., 5‘7“-5‘10“, 150-160 lbs., black hair, brown eyes,” while his true name was William Martin McCrae and his own description of himself corresponded closely, though not exactly, with that set forth in the indictment. (Id. at p. 728; see also People v. Le Roy (1884) 65 Cal. 613, 615 [4 P. 649] [fact that defendant was designated by different names in the information was not a ground for setting it aside under
We simply add that, in any event, the fact that defendant was first described by a fictitious name and his unique DNA profile “did not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.” (People v. Goscinsky (1921) 52 Cal.App. 62, 64 [198 P. 40].) The fact that defendant was so identified
We conclude that, when there is no more particular, accurate, or reliable means of identification available to law enforcement, an arrest warrant or a complaint that describes the person to be arrested by a fictitious name and his unique DNA profile, or incorporating by reference an affidavit containing such a unique DNA profile, satisfies the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment, the California Constitution, and
C. The Statute of Limitations
Defendant contends the California Legislature has indicated a “clear intent that neither a ‘John Doe’ complaint nor a ‘John Doe’ arrest warrant can timely commence a criminal action and thereby satisfy a statute of limitations.” He claims the John Doe warrant that issued regarding the offenses perpetrated against Deborah L. “circumvented” the limitations period intended by the Legislature and denied him “due process under the
In our discussion of the particularity requirements for an arrest warrant or a complaint, we impliedly answered defendant‘s question in the affirmative. We explicitly do so below.
In part 2, title 3, chapter 4 of our
“Under settled canons of statutory construction, in construing a statute we ascertain the Legislature‘s intent in order to effectuate the law‘s purpose. (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1386-1387 [241 Cal.Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d 1323].) We must look to the statute‘s words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning. (DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238, 828 P.2d 140].) The statute‘s plain meaning controls the court‘s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous.” (Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 260 [64 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, 165 P.3d 118].)
By its plain language,
We are aware that defendant relies upon the 1984 California Law Revision Commission‘s comment to
Second, neither the Legislature nor the official comment of the California Law Revision Commission discusses the precise issue before us, which is whether a fictitious name such as John Doe, when coupled with the unique DNA profile of the defendant, identifies the defendant with reasonable certainty such that the warrant reasonably informs the person that he or she is being prosecuted. As to this precise question, we reach the same conclusion reached by the New York appellate court in Martinez, supra, 855 N.Y.S.2d 522, which held that “an indictment that identifies a defendant solely by his or her [unique] DNA markers satisfies the defendant‘s constitutional right to notice.” (Id. at p. 523.)32
In the New York state trial court, defendant Martinez had argued that the John Doe designation accompanied by the DNA profile “was defective inasmuch as it did not ‘name a person’ and did not ‘adequately describe’ him“; that he was “given ‘inadequate notice’ that he was accused of a crime because he did not know his own DNA profile“; that he “had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial“; and that “the statute of limitations had lapsed.” (Martinez, supra, 855 N.Y.S.2d at p. 524.) After noting that some of these claims had been waived by the defendant, the appellate court rejected each claim on the merits by reasoning as follows: “The right to notice that a defendant is entitled to by indictment is the right to ‘fair notice of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to prepare a defense’ [citation]. This function of the indictment is founded on the notice requirement of . . . our State Constitution as well as the
The Martinez court explained that, “given the advances in science, the practice of indicting by DNA is starting to take a foothold in this country‘s criminal justice system [citation].” (Id. at p. 525.) The court‘s review of the status of DNA indictments throughout the country is thorough, and we incorporate it here as part of our analysis: “Some states have employed non-statutory DNA indictments, but in addition to the federal legislation (
We agree with the court in Martinez that, “[a]bsent a constitutional or statutory prohibition, a DNA indictment is an appropriate method to prosecute perpetrators of some of the most heinous criminal acts. Indeed, the prevalence of DNA databanks today as a criminal justice tool supports the conclusion that a defendant can be properly identified by a DNA profile, especially in light of the accuracy of this identification. The chance that a positive DNA match does not belong to the same person may be less than one in 500 million (see Moyer & Anway, supra, 22 Berkeley Tech. LJ at 684 n. 64). Therefore, in the instant case, given the nature of the crime, the notice of the charges received by defendant was ‘reasonable under all the circumstances’ [citation].” (Martinez, supra, 855 N.Y.S.2d at p. 526.) We also agree with Martinez that a defendant‘s “constitutionally grounded right to fair notice of the crime of which he is accused is not dependent on the subjective capacity of defendant to understand it. Just as defendant is not required to be literate for a written indictment to be valid, he is not required to be a geneticist to be subject to indictment by DNA profile.” (Ibid.)
Defendant‘s argument to the contrary, there is no material difference between the words “description” and “identification” that would alter our analysis. The only difference is semantic. As relevant here, the Oxfоrd English Dictionary defines “describe” in its “ordinary current sense” as “to give a detailed or graphic account of” “by reference to qualities, recognizable features, or characteristic marks.” (4 Oxford English Dict. (2d ed. 1989) p. 511.) That dictionary‘s general definition of “describe” is “[t]o write down, set forth in writing, or in written words.” (Ibid., italics added.) Identification is the act of identifying, and a relevant definition of “identify” is “[t]o ascertain the origin, nature, or definitive characteristics of.” (American Heritage Dict. (4th ed. 2000) p. 871.) A relevant definition of “characteristic” is a “distinctive mark, trait, or feature; a distinguishing or essential peculiarity or quality.” (3 Oxford English Dict. (2d ed. 1989) p. 33.) As the Court of Appeal aptly noted, “it cannot be disputed that DNA analysis is as close to an infallible measure of identity as science can presently obtain.” “‘“A genetic code describes a person with far greater precision than a physical description or a name,“’ as physical characteristics can be altered in an attempt to avoid criminal accountability, but a DNA profile cannot. (Dabney, supra,
The Court of Appeal correctly pointed out that, “[i]n passing the [Act], the California Legislature found that ‘(DNA) and forensic identification analysis is a useful law enforcement tool for identifying and prosecuting sexual and violent offenders.’ (Former § 295, subd. (b)(1), as added by Stats. 1998, ch. 696, § 2; see also People v. King, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1378 [finding there is no question but that DNA testing provides an efficient means of identification].) Similar findings have been made by all other states and the federal government, which have enacted DNA database and data bank acts. (Alfaro v. Terhune, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 505; see Annot., Validity, Construction, and Operation of State DNA Database Statutes (2000) 76 A.L.R. 5th 239, 252;
Defendant argues that, because a DNA profile merely provides information about genetic makeup not apparent to the naked eye, an arrest cannot be readily executed. However, the intent of the particularity requirement is to “prevent[] the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another,” and to ensure that “nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” (Marron v. United States (1927) 275 U.S. 192, 196 [72 L.Ed. 231, 48 S.Ct. 74].) The requirement of particularity is satisfied and preserved by incorporation of a suspect‘s unique DNA profile in an arrest warrant. “No matter how well a warrant describes the individual, extrinsic information is commonly needed to execute it. If a name is given, information to link the name to the physical person must be acquired.” (Dabney, supra, 663 N.W.2d at p. 372; see also Danley, supra, 853 N.E.2d at p. 1228; U.S. v. Doe (3d Cir. 1983) 703 F.2d 745, 748.) Here, given the reliability of a DNA profile, the requirement of particularity is satisfied although extrinsic information is needed to enable law enforcement officers to execute an arrest warrant based on a fictitious name and DNA profile. (See U.S. v. Doe, supra, 703 F.2d at p. 747 [even with a detailed written description on a warrant, extrinsic information will be necessary to execute it].)
In light of the above, we conclude that the prosecution in this case was properly commenced within the six-year period of limitations by the filing of
DISPOSITION
We remand the matter to the Court of Appeal, Third District, with directions to remand the matter to the trial court with directions to amend the abstract of judgment and the minute order of sentencing to reflect the correct Penal Code section and subdivision for forcible oral copulation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
George, C. J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., and Corrigan, J., concurred.
MORENO, J., Concurring and Dissenting.----I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that the statute of limitations is satisfied by the filing of a “John Doe” arrest warrant that identifies the suspect by only a DNA profile. As explained below, the original arrest warrant filed in this case was not a true warrant because it did not actually authorize the arrest of anyone; it was a clever artifice intended solely to satisfy the statute of limitations until the identity of the perpetrator could be discovered. When this occurred, through a “cold hit” match of defendant‘s DNA, the arrest warrant was amended to reflect defendant‘s name and only then, after the statute of limitations had expired, did the warrant become effective and permit defendant to be arrested.
On August 25, 1994, Deborah L. was raped in her home by an unknown assailant. It was dark and the victim could provide only a general description of her attacker as a male of Hispanic or African-American descent with a “medium black complexion,” appearing to be in his twenties, approximately 5‘7” tall, weighing about 180 pounds, with brown eyes. A semen sample was recovered from her vagina when she was treated for her injuries shortly after the crime. Sacramento Police Detective Peter Willover was assigned as the lead investigator, but the file lay on his desk, unsolved, for nearly six years.
In 2000, Detective Willover was aware that the statute of limitations would soon expire1 and spoke to the prosecutor about “the possibility of doing some DNA work on cases that were about to expire in statute of limitations.” Detective Willover had requested that the semen sample be analyzed for DNA in 1994, but he did not know if such an analysis had been conducted. Because advances had been made in DNA technology, he again requested that the sample be tested.
On August 22, 2000, Detective Willover executed a declaration in support of an arrest warrant for John Doe stating that “DNA was extracted from the sperm fraction obtained and this DNA was typed at 13 genetic locations.” The declaration recited the above quoted DNA profile that was included in the complaint. An arrest warrant was issued that day for “JOHN DOE,” describing him only аs a Black male. A related document stated, under the designation “REMARKS“: “SUSPECT IDENTIFIABLE BY GENETIC PROFILE IN SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT [94-]70626. CONTACT SPD DET. PETE WILLOVER [telephone number] OR SACRAMENTO DISTRICT ATTORNEY‘S ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT UNIT [telephone number].”
On September 15, 2000, an analysis of defendant‘s DNA resulted in a “cold hit” match with the DNA profile obtained from the semen recovered from the victim in this case. On September 18, 2000, more than six years after the victim was sexually assaulted, the complaint and the arrest warrant were amended to replace the “John Doe” designation and DNA profile with the name of defendant, Paul Robinson, and defendant was arrested.
On November 20, 2000, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired before the amended complaint was filed. At a subsequent hearing, the district attorney who prepared the original complaint and arrest warrant testified that the suspect‘s DNA profile had not been entered on the face of the arrest warrant because “the way the computer system is set up, it will not take that many characters in identifying information.” She agreed that a peace officer would not have had enough information to make an arrest based upon the arrest warrant alone without contacting her or Detective Willover.
A clerk in the warrants section of the Sacramento Police Department testified that standard procedure includes entering a felony arrest warrant in either the “California wanted persons or NCIC, which is nationwide wanted persons system,” but it is not possible to do so without certain “mandatory information,” which includes “the name, sex, date of birth, [and] height.”
Standard procedure also includes assigning a peace officer to execute the warrant. The warrant in the present case had not been assigned to an officer becаuse “[t]here was not enough information to assign it to anybody . . . .” When asked whether she would have assigned the arrest warrant to an officer to execute if a DNA profile had appeared on the face of the warrant, the clerk replied she would not, because “I know nothing about DNA.”
Detective Willover acknowledged that the original arrest warrant did not authorize the arrest of any individual, stating: “I would not, as a peace officer, arrest somebody just on the face of this” because the arrest warrant “doesn‘t identify the individual named in the warrant.” If an officer had telephoned him, as called for in the “Remarks” section of the document accompanying the warrant, Detective Willover testified he “would explain to the officer it is a warrant in the name of John Doe due to the fact we don‘t know who the individual is, and I would explain to the officer that most likely we have not had a DNA hit yet and there is nobody to arrest.” It was not until September 15, 2000, when he received word from the crime lab that defendant‘s DNA had been matched to the semen sample, that there was sufficient information to arrest anyone based upon the arrest warrant.
The detective admitted that the only reason to issue the arrest warrant was to prevent the statute of limitations from expiring:
“Q. Detective, you testified you knew you could not execute the warrant until after a match; is that correct?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Why is that?
“A. I didn‘t know who the person was.
“Q. So why did you get the warrant? [] ... []
“[A.] I was aware that once a warrant is issued on the case, a statute of limitations would not expire as long as you showed due diligence. In my mind, I was hoping to be able to identify and prosecute the person who committed these crimes.”
I do not impugn the motives of Detective Willover or the prosecutor. They made an inventive attempt to continue investigating a serious crime. But permitting this attempt to succeed creates a large loophole in the statute of limitations that the Legislature did not intend.
Statutes of limitation are not required by either the state or federal Constitutions, and “[t]here is no statute of limitations for murder, embezzlement of public funds, and certain other offenses punishable by life imprisonment. [Citation.]” (People v. Frazer (1999) 21 Cal.4th 737, 743 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312, 982 P.2d 180]; see id. at pp. 769-770.) The interests of the state protected by statutes of limitation “include both societal repose and the protection of individuals whose means of defense might be impaired by the passage of time. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 770.) Statutes of limitation “encourage the swift and effective enforcement of the law, hopefully producing a stronger deterrent effect.” (People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 547 [134 Cal.Rptr. 784, 557 P.2d 75].) “[A]doption of a period of limitation represents a legislative recognition that for all but the most serious of offenses (such as murder or kidnapping) a never-ending threat of prosecution is more detrimental to the functioning of a civilized society than it is beneficial. [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
“California‘s criminal statutes of limitation were first enacted in 1851 and codified in 1872.” (People v. Frazer, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 743.) In 1981, the Legislature directed the California Law Revision Commission (sometimes hereafter Commission) to study the statutes of limitations and make recommendations. (Stats. 1981, ch. 909, § 3, p. 3443.) As a result, “[t]he entire scheme . . . was overhauled in 1984. [Citation.]” (21 Cal.4th at p. 743; see Stats. 1984, ch. 1270, § 2, p. 4335.)
The Law Revision Commission began its recommendations by examining the functions of statutes of limitations in felony prosecutions: “The pre-eminent function of a felony limitations statute is to protect a person accused of crime both from having to face charges based on evidence that may be unreliable and from losing access to the evidentiary means to defend against
The Law Revision Commission carefully explained why it recommended that certain acts should be deemed to commence prosecution sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations: “The statute should be satisfied when the accused is informed of the decision to prosecute and the general nature of the charge with sufficient promptness to allow the accused to prepare a defense before evidence of his or her innocence becomes weakened with age. Actions that satisfy this general standard should amount to commencement of prosecution for the purpose of the statute of limitations.” (Recommendation, supra, at p. 316.) The Commission concluded that the “finding of an indictment, the filing of an information, and the certification of a case to the superior court are all acts that commence prosecution,” stating: “Each of these events marks a formal decision by the prosecution as to the general nature of the charge and the identity of the accused, and will ordinarily come to the attention of the accused.” (Ibid., italics added.)
The Commission‘s reason for adding the filing of an arrest warrant to the list of actions that commence a prosecution and satisfy the statute of limitations stemmed, in part, from its recommendation that the statute of limitations no longer be tolled while the suspect is absent from the jurisdiction. The Commission recommended that instead of tolling the statute of limitations while the suspect is absent from the jurisdiction, “the statute of limitations can be satisfied by issuing a warrant for arrest of the person.” (Recommendation, supra, at p. 315.) But issuing an arrest warrant would satisfy the statute of limitations only if “the warrant specifies the name of the defendant or identifies and describes the defendant with sufficient particularity. Otherwise there is the possibility that a ‘Doe’ warrant would satisfy the statute without ever reasonably informing a person that he or she is being prosecuted.” (Id. at p. 316, italics added.)
The Law Revision Commission recommended that
“Because the official comments of the California Law Revision Commission ‘are declarative of the intent not only of the draftsman of the code but also of the legislators who subsequently enacted it’ [citation], the comments are persuasive, albeit not conclusive, evidence of that intent [citation].” (Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 148 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 65 P.3d 807].) Nothing in the legislative history of
The majority reasons that the arrest warrant was sufficient because the reference to a DNA profile prevented the warrant from being a “general warrant, upon which any other person might as well have been arrested.” (West v. Cabell (1894) 153 U.S. 78, 86 [38 L.Ed. 643, 14 S.Ct. 752].) I agree that this was not a general warrant. The flaw here is not that the warrant authorized the arrest of too many people, but that it authorized the arrest of no one at all.
The mаjority acknowledges that the statute of limitations would not be satisfied by “initiating a shell action against nobody in particular.” (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 1137, fn. 30.) It is true that the DNA warrant in this case was aimed at one particular suspect, but it still was a shell action, because the prosecution did not yet know the identity of that suspect. In fact, the prosecution likely would never had been able to identify the suspect had he not been arrested for a new crime and been forced to provide a blood sample. The investigating officer candidly admitted that the warrant was not intended to authorize the arrest of anyone until a match had been found for the DNA sample. The Attorney General states that “until a match was made, the warrant could not be executed.” When that happened, the warrant was amended to reflect defendant‘s name and then, and only then, was it transformed from a shell action into a true warrant that could authorize the arrest of a person.
The majority concludes that the DNA arrest warrant satisfied section 804, which requires that the warrant “describe” the defendant with particularity. I
Unlike a detailed physical description, a DNA profile neither describes the suspect in the conventional sensе that would permit an arresting officer to recognize and arrest the suspect, nor identifies a particular person. At most, a DNA profile is information that can be used to identify a suspect once a DNA match is made, but it is not a substitute for the detailed physical description required in a “John Doe” warrant.
The rule the majority creates does not result in an injustice in this particular case. To the contrary, defendant is guilty of heinous crimes and deserves the punishment he will receive. But the effect of the majority‘s rule is not limited to this case. It will permit this type of sham arrest warrant to be used to circumvent the statute of limitations in any criminal prosecution in California in which biological evidence is left at the crime scene from which DNA can be extracted. Our ruling is not limited to situations like the present case in which DNA is extracted from semen recovered from a rape victim. It would apply equally if a human hair is found at the crime scene from which DNA can be extracted, or if the suspect left blood at the scene. And it is not limited to cases involving a sexual assault. Thus, the prosecution can effectively circumvent the statute of limitations in any case in which the police happen to find DNA evidence linking a suspect to the crime. In those cases, an arrest warrant identifying the suspect only by his or her DNA profile can be filed and the statute of limitations will not bar the case from being prosecuted whenever a match is made—whether that be a matter of months, years, or decades.
The majority opinion will have the unfortunate effect of usurping the Legislature‘s reasoned and measured treatment of the statute of limitations in cases involving DNA evidence. After the statute of limitations had expired in this case, the Legislature enacted
The majority‘s holding will thus abrogate the careful limitations crafted by the Legislature. The prosecution can use DNA arrest warrants to satisfy the statute of limitations for crimes expressly excluded from the scope of
Our resolve as a court is tested when we are called upon to release a guilty person in order to defend a principle. This defendant certainly committed heinous crimes against an innocent victim, but it is our duty to apply the laws enacted by the Legislature evenly and rationally, even if that means letting a guilty person go free. “[T]he potential that a guilty person will avoid just punishment is inherent in all statutes of limitations. Society has assumed this loss in exchange for other considerations.” (People v. Frazer, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 784 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).)
Werdegar, J., concurred.