• Home
  • News
  • New Defense Warning: Don’t Brush?

Criminal Justice

New Defense Warning: Don’t Brush?

Posted Dec 18, 2007 11:26 AM CST
By Martha Neil

Don't talk to police. Don't talk to your cellmate. And, whatever you do, don't brush your teeth.

This could soon be standard advice from criminal defense lawyers to clients, if a recent Illinois evidentiary ruling is any indication. An accused rapist who refused to give a DNA sample has nonetheless been linked by DNA evidence to the crime, after authorities got what they needed from his toothbrush while he was being held in jail in southern Illinois on an unrelated misdemeanor charge, reports the Chicago Tribune.

Although counsel for defendant Larry Barrett challenged the toothbrush DNA test as an unconstitutional search and seizure under the Fourth amendment, DuPage County Circuit Judge Michael Burke ruled after a hearing Monday that it could be used as evidence in Barrett's rape case, the newspaper writes. Authorities, who argued that probable cause wasn't required to search Barrett's cell, didn't get a warrant until after they had established a link between Barrett's DNA and the rape with which he is charged.

"Somebody held on a misdemeanor offense ... doesn't lose his privacy rights because he can't post bail," argued Steve Dalton, who works as a DuPage County senior assistant public defender. But Burke said the prisoner had no reasonable expectation of privacy while he was in jail. "This is not akin to holding him down and taking blood, collecting saliva, pulling hair," the judge said. "That is a different issue."

Albert Alschuler, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, describes the issue as complicated and says it is one that Barrett might win on appeal. "I think the prisoner has a substantial argument," he tells the Tribune. "If the authorities had probable cause for securing a DNA sample—and the standard might be less than probable cause—they were dumb not to play it safe by getting a warrant."

Comments

1.

Christopher Johnston
Dec 20, 2007 7:56 AM CST

Let me begin by saying I am not an attorney. I do agree that his rights “may” have been violated. What about the rights of the victim that he violated when he raped her? If his DNA matches the evidence and links him to the rape and the victim fingers him as the person that commited the rape I don’t really see the problem with how it was obtained.
Prison and/or jail is all about taking away your freedom. You are restricted in what you can do, when you can do it, and who you can do it with. You are even restricted in what items you can and cannot have. If they want to take a DNA sample from something you left laying out in the open in your cell what is to keep them from doing that?

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.