DNA cheek swab may be taken without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion; Pirtle counsel right for a valid consent to search by a person in custody does not apply to consenting to taking of a cheek swab.
Criminal
Clark v. State, No. 43S00-0810-CR-575, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 15, 2009)
Defendant’s statements about himself on his “My Space” website as an “outlaw” were properly admitted to rebut his testimony at trial.
Damron v. State, No. 49F18-8909-PC-109913, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2009)
Record is not “silent” for purposes of Boykin rights waiver advisement because guilty plea hearing recording was destroyed; here, P-C.R. petitioner presented no evidence he was not advised of Boykin rights, so “presumption of regularity” that advice was given applied.
Hobbs v. State, No. 19A01-0904-CR-187, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2009)
Warrantless search of defendant’s car, conducted in the evening after defendant’s arrest on an outstanding warrant and after an alert by a drug-sniff dog, did not violate Indiana Constitution’s Article I section 11.
Pendergrass v. State, No. 71S03-0808-CR-00445, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 24, 2009).
Admission of DNA test results without testimony of technician who performed DNA test procedures but with testimony of lab supervisor who reviewed the specific results and of expert who prepared paternity analysis satisfied defendant’s federal Crawford Confrontation Clause right.