AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
DNA Testing & Issues
Two officers pulled over an 18-year-old male motorist
for having a missing front license plate. They claimed that he fired a weapon
towards their squad car and then ran away. They shot him three times in the
back and he subsequently died. Two eyewitnesses testified that they thought
that the motorist had no weapon. The defendants offered testimony that gunshot
residue was found on the decedent’s hand and that casings were found at the
site from which he shot. The gun found near the decedent was swabbed for DNA,
but the samples were never tested by the state police. A jury returned a
verdict for the defendant officers in an excessive force lawsuit. A federal appeals court upheld this
result. It rejected an argument that the trial judge erroneously excluded
evidence and argument concerning the failure to test the DNA swabs. The sole relevant
issue was whether or not the officers were justified in shooting the decedent.
A lack of DNA evidence, by itself, did not tend to prove or disprove
justification. Further, nothing linked the officers who shot the decedent to
the missing DNA evidence, and it would be unfair to assume that testing the DNA
swabs would have helped or harmed the plaintiff’s case. Mitchell v. City of Chicago, #14-2957, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 11958
(7th Cir.).
A man served his full ten year
sentence for rape and residential burglary, after which his conviction was
vacated because of newly available DNA evidence. He sued a police detective
involved in his case, accusing him of fabrication of evidence. Overturning a
trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit, a federal appeals court found that the
claim did not accrue until the plaintiff was acquitted of all charges, so that
the lawsuit was filed in a timely fashion within the applicable three year
statute of limitations and was not time barred. The appeals court did not
address the detective's qualified immunity defense, as the court below had not
reached the issue. Bradford v. Scherschligt, #14-35651, 803 F.3d 382 (9th Cir.
2015).
A man was convicted of rape and murder,
with the evidence against him including testimony and confessions from his five
co-defendants, all of whom pled guilty to various charges in connection with
the crime. 19 years later, based on DNA testing, all the convictions were
pardoned or overturned. They sued the county and officers involved in the case,
and in earlier proceedings, it was determined that their “evidence is
sufficient to support plaintiffs’ claims that their rights to fair criminal
proceedings were violated as the result of a reckless investigation and
defendants’ manufacturing of false evidence,”that the evidence was sufficient
to support a conspiracy claim, but was not sufficient to support a coercion
claim; that members of the sheriff’s office were not protected by qualified
immunity; and that the county attorney was protected by absolute immunity. A
federal appeals court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the
officers, and ruled that claims against the county should not have been
rejected, since the plaintiffs “produced proof of questionable procedures” and
“hasty condemnation” by officers in charge of policy-making. There was
sufficient evidence that the sheriff was a final policymaker for the county,
and created its applicable policies, supervised officers, and encouraged,
directed, and endorsed their activities. Dean v. Cnty. of Gage, #14-1747, 800
F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2015).
A number of police officers claimed that two
other officers violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they
complied with a court order to obtain DNA samples from them to exclude them as
possible contributors of DNA at a crime scene. The samples were of saliva,
obtained by use ol a mouth swab. A federal appeals court ruled that the court
order in question satisfied the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, and
that no undue intrusion occurred as the use of buccal swabs was brief and
minimal, intrusions that involve almost no risk, trauma, or pain. As to a
reasonable expectation of privacy, it was reasonable to require officers to
produce such samples to to demonstrate that DNA left at a crime scene was not
theirs and was not the result of inadvertent contamination of the crime scene
by on-duty officers. Bill v. Brewer, #13-15844, 799 F.3d 1295
(9th Cir. 2015).
A $20 million settlement as
been reached in a wrongful conviction lawsuit brought by a man who spent 20
years in prison on a life sentence for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl
before DNA evidence pointed to someone else as the culpable party. The
settlement will be paid by county law enforcement and law enforcement agencies
from a number of towns involved in the investigation. The lawsuit claimed that
a confession given by the plaintiff was not true and was coerced as a result of
four straight days of interrogation, including one session that lasted 24
hours. The girl's blood soaked shoes, which had blood from the rapist/murderer,
were ever introduced in evidence at trial, which the lawsuit pointed to as
proof that the prosecution was a "frame-up." The plaintiff was
convicted three separate times in jury trials before being exonerated. The
settlement is reportedly the largest wrongful conviction settlement for an individual
person in the U.S. Rivera v. Lake County Illinois, #1:12-cv-08665, U.S. Dist.
Ct. (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2015).
A D.C. prisoner was incarcerated for over two
decades in both federal and state prisons on a conviction for raping and
robbing a woman in 1981 when he was 18. After his parole, he was required to
register as a sex offender, limting his employment, housing, and other
opportunities. During his incarceration, he suffered multiple instances of
sexual and physical assaults, and contracted HIV. In 2012, at the age of 50, he
was exonerated and determined to be actually innocent of the robbery and rape,
based on DNA evidence. He reached a settlement of claims against the fedeeral
government under the Unjust Convictions Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1495 and 25a3, and
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. of $1,128,082.19,
based on $50,000 times the 22.56 years he was incarcerated. Continuing to
pursue his claims against the District of Columbia inder the D.C. Unjust
Imprisonment Act, D.C. Code Sec. 2-421 et. seq., he was awarded $9,154,500 in
damages for wrongful conviction, unjust imprisonment, sexual and physical
assaults, contracting HIV, lost income, and physcal and psychological injuries.
A D.ZC. court found that his wrongful conviction and unjust imprisonment had
been a proximate cause of all these damages. It also rejected an argument that
D.C. was entitled to an offset from the award for the amount of the plaintiff's
settlement with the federal government. Odom v. District of Columbia, #2013-CA-3239,
2015 D.C. Super. Lexis 2.
A rape victim and another witness identified a
man as her assailant. While the police collected a rape kit with pubic and head
hair and swabs, it was not tested for DNA, and the man was convicted. Years
later, the kit was tested under court order, and it was determined that it
contained no testable spermatozoa. Still later, based on a new law, the man
sought further testing, claiming that new technology enabled testing of samples
previously deemed inadequate. The kit could not be found, and the prosecutor's
office indicated that it must have been destroyed, pointing both to an earlier
fire and a practice of the property clerk of destroying records after six
years. Years later on, the evidence was found, tested, and it was determined
that the DNA did not match the man, and his conviction was vacated. In a
lawsuit claiming that an inadequate evidence system had deprived him of due
process and access to the courts, a federal appeals court overturned a trial
court order setting aside an $18 million verdict in the plaintiff's favor
against the city. It held that, under New York law, a convicted prisoner has a
liberty interest in demonstrating his innocence with newly available DNA
evidence and is entitled to reasonable procedures that facilitate him
vindicating that interest. There was evidence that the police department's
failure to adequately track evidence was pervasive. The jury's verdict on the
due process claim was reinstated, and, on remand, further proceedings were ordered
on the plaintiff's First Amendment claim for denial of his right of access to
the courts. Newton v. City of New York, #11-2610, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 2835
(2nd Cir.)
A federal appeals court has upheld a $7 million
damage award against two police officers who were accused of having framed a
mentally challenged man with an IQ of 67 for the brutal rape, multiple
stabbings, and murder of a 58-year-old woman. He was exonerated of any
involvement in the crime through DNA testing after almost 26 years in prison.
The officers allegedly spent hours alone with him after his arrest in 1983,
telling the then 15-year-old boy information about the crime scene and then
"tricking" him into repeating the information back in a manner that
looked ike a confession. The jury's award is against the officers personally,
with one liable for $4 million and the other for $3 million. Spadaro v. City of
Miramar, #13-14884, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 932 (Unpub. 11th Cir.). The facts of
the case are covered in a prior decision. Spadaro v. City of Miramar,
#11-61607, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16714 (S.D. Fla.).
Officers who make a lawful arrest for a serious
offense may take and analyze a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA. Like
fingerprinting and photographing, it is a legitimate police booking procedure
that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Maryland v. King, #12-207, 2013
U.S. Lexis 4165.
A man arrested and convicted of sexual assault
had his conviction overturned when DNA testing indicated that his uncle, rather
than he, was the guilty party. Despite this, his malicious prosecution lawsuit
against the police was properly dismissed, since, based on the evidence they
had at the time, they had probable cause to arrest him, even if they were
ultimately mistaken. Under these circumstances, they had no improper malice
towards him, and did nothing improper. Holland v. City of Chicago, #09-3905,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 12688 (7th Cir.).
A man sentenced to death after being convicted of
murdering his girlfriend sought to challenge his conviction in Texas state
court by seeking DNA testing of various untested evidence from the crime scene,
including knives, an axe handle, vaginal swabs, fingernail clippings, and
certain hair samples. State courts rejected his plea for DNA testing, finding
that he had not made a required showing that he "would not have been
convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing."
He then filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor, seeking
injunctive relief requiring the DNA tests. By a 6-3 vote, the U.S, Supreme
Court held that claims concerning the right to DNA testing could be asserted
not only in habeas corpus proceedings, but also in federal civil rights
lawsuits. Success in having the testing done would not necessarily imply the
invalidity of the plaintiff's conviction. The Court therefore ordered further
proceedings on the merits of the plaintiff's claim that denying him the DNA
testing violated his due process rights. . Skinner v. Switzer, #09-9000, 2011
U.S. Lexis 1905.
A man being prosecuted for armed bank robbery was
granted a motion to suppress a sample of his DNA to compare with DNA found in a
van believed to have been used by the robber, on the ground that it had been
obtained by way of a materially and recklessly false warrant affidavit, in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. A paragraph in the affidavit was false, as
it misrepresented that police interviews of "various witnesses" had
observed a stolen van meeting up with a silver Volkswagen van following the
robbery. The officer writing the affidavit had not participated in interviewing
the witnesses or read the written witness statements, and did not review the
investigation reports in any detail. The officer's drafting of the affidavit
went beyond simple negligence into recklessness, as it could be said that he
had no evidentiary basis at all for making the statement concerning the van.
U.S. v. Brown, #09-3643, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1059 (3rd Cir.).
A man was convicted of rape and kidnapping on the
basis of testimony by a police forensic chemist that hair and semen found at
the scene of the crime were consistent with samples taken from him. Seventeen
years later, the man's conviction was vacated based on exculpatory DNA results.
The chemist's own lab tests indicated that she should have excluded him as a
possible suspect. In a federal civil rights lawsuit against the chemist and the
city that employed her, the arrestee was awarded $16.5 million against the
chemist. The city was found not liable. The chemist filed an indemnification
cross-claim against the city, but settled it for $23,364.29 without the
plaintiff's participation. A federal appeals court has upheld the trial court's
rejection of the plaintiff's attempt to directly seek indemnification on his
judgment against the chemist from the city, since there was no evidence of
deliberate indifference by the city and the plaintiff was not the real party in
interest on the chemist's indemnification cross-claim. Bryson v. Oklahoma City,
#09-6143, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24822 (10th Cir.).
In a case involving a prosecution for a
number of sexual offenses, the California Supreme Court approved the use of a
"John Doe, unknown male" arrest warrant, describing the wanted person
by his unique 13-loci deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile. The warrant was
issued in this manner, as the statute of limitations for attempting to
prosecute the offenses would have otherwise been exceeded.. Peo. v. Robinson,
#S158528, 47 Cal. 4th 1104, 224 P.3d 55 (Cal. 2010).
A man was convicted of a murder and jailed for ten
years. Ultimately, he was exonerated based on post-trial DNA testing carried
out by the district attorneys' office. He sued, contending that his rights were
violated by a 72-day delay in informing him or his lawyer of the exculpatory
results. A federal appeals court ruled that prosecutors were entitled to
absolute immunity from liability because their actions were integrally
connected to their role as advocates for the state in post-conviction
proceedings. An order denying the defendant county's motion to dismiss was not
immediately appealable. Warney v. Monroe County, #08-0947, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
24914 (2nd Cir.).
An inmate claimed that Pennsylvania's refusal to
allow him to conduct post-conviction DNA testing on evidence in his criminal
case violated his due process rights. The federal appeals court noted that the
U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument in District Attorney's Office for the
Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, #08–6, 2009 U.S. Lexis 4536, and that there
is no federal constitutional right to such testing. Young v. Philadelphia
County District Attorney's Office, #09-1668, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17799 (Unpub.
3rd Cir.).
A federal court has held that police can lawfully
forcibly take DNA samples, including by drawing blood with a needle, from
persons who have been arrested but not convicted of any crime. The court upheld
a federal statute allowing the gathering of such samples from those arrested
for a felony. The court rejected claims that taking such samples was overly
intrusive or violates the Fourth Amendment. U.S.A. v Pool, #CR09-0015, (E.D.
Cal.).
A man was convicted of kidnapping, sexual
assault, and assault after the prosecution elected not to conduct DNA testing
on materials from the victim's person and her clothing. His requests for DNA
testing in connection with post-conviction proceedings were denied in state
court. In a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking access to the materials for
DNA testing, denying this request, a federal appeals court ruled that there is
no due process right to post-conviction access to evidence for DNA testing, and
nothing constitutionally inadequate in Colorado's post-conviction procedures
applied in this context. McDaniel v. Suthers, #08-1400, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
13613 (10th Cir.).
Qualified immunity was improperly granted
in a lawsuit over the forcible taking of a DNA sample from a pretrial detainee
merely because a prosecutor wanted to put the sample in a "cold case"
data bank. At the time, the court stated, there was no warrant or court order
authorizing the taking of the sample, nor was the detainee suspected of a crime
for which a DNA sample might be justified. An officer allegedly forced his jaw
open and forcefully took a swab from the inside of his mouth. If true, this
action violated the detainee's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.
Friedman v. Boucher, No. 05-15675, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13440 (9th
Cir.). .
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a federal civil rights
lawsuit brought by a man convicted of sexual assault and other crimes, held
that the plaintiff had no constitutional right to post-conviction access to the
state's evidence for DNA testing for the purpose of attempting to prove his
innocence. The Court also reasoned that it was a legislative task to develop
procedures and rules for obtaining access to such evidence for DNA testing.
District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, #08–6,
2009 U.S. Lexis 4536.
The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will
decide whether a man convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping fourteen years
ago has a constitutional right to access to DNA from physical evidence
collected in the case for the purpose of conducting tests which he claims will
show his innocence, but which were not possible scientifically to perform at
the time of his trial. District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, # 08-06, cert.
granted, Nov. 3, 2008. Case below: Osborne v. District Attorney's Office,
#06-35875, 521 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008).
While plaintiff's claim that denial of access to
physical evidence which was the basis for his murder conviction stated
circumstances which might violate his constitutional rights, his claim was
time-barred under a two-year statute of limitations which began to run on the
date that a state court denied his request for access to the physical evidence
for purposes of DNA testing. Savory v. Lyons, No. 06-1296 (7th Cir.
November 29, 2006). [N/R]
Arrestee had no constitutional right to pre-trial
DNA testing, even though failure to do requested test allegedly delayed his
release from detention for twenty-two months. Jimenez v. State of New Jersey,
245 F. Supp. 2d 584 (D. N.J. 2003). [2003 LR Jul]
Court defers to legislature the issue of the
potential constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing for persons
convicted of federal crimes and declines to fashion a broad constitutional due
process right of access to DNA testing. Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.
2002) [N/R]
Florida state DNA testing statute upheld against
state constitutional privacy challenge. Requirement that all felons convicted
of certain offenses undergo a DNA blood test also did not violate a juvenile
felon's Fourth Amendment rights, since the public's legitimate interests in
identifying the perpetrators of crime, absolving the innocent, and preventing
recidivism outweighed a felon's diminished expectation of privacy. L.S. v.
State of Florida, 805 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. App. 2001). [N/R]