United States v. Thomas, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Thomas, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/26

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2438

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

MI CHAEL R. THOMAS,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. D. Br ock Hor nby, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

J . Hi l ar y Bi l l i ngs, Assi st ant Feder al Def ender , f or appel l ant .Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

Thomas E. Del ahunt y I I , Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

November 22, 2013


2/26

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Mi chael R. Thomas condi t i onal l y pl ed

gui l t y t o a ser i es of cr i mi nal char ges br ought i n 2011, i ncl udi ng

f or sendi ng l et t er s to publ i c of f i ci al s t hr eat eni ng mur der . He

appeal s f r om t he di st r i ct cour t ' s 2011 deni al of hi s mot i on t o

suppr ess t he f r ui t s of t he use of hi s 2005 DNA pr of i l e i n secur i ng

a 2011 war r ant . Uni t ed St ates v. Thomas, 815 F. Supp. 2d 384 ( D.

Me. 2011) .

The DNA was obt ai ned dur i ng a 2005 post al ser vi ce

i nvest i gat i on of a di f f er ent mat t er whi ch r esul t ed i n no char ges

agai nst Thomas. That pr of i l e was not dest r oyed but r et ai ned i n

cl osed i nvest i gat i ve f i l es. I t was r et r i eved dur i ng t he 2011

i nvest i gat i on, whi ch f ocused on Thomas f or ot her r easons. The 2005

DNA pr of i l e was a match t o the DNA r ecover ed f r om t he thr eat eni ng

l et t er s sent i n 2011 and pr ovi ded t he basi s f or t he 2011 war r ant .

Thi s case present s a ser i es of Four t h Amendment i ssues

r el at i ng t o t he col l ect i on of t i ssue by cheek swab and t he

r esul t i ng DNA pr of i l e, t he r et ent i on of t he pr of i l e i n t he cl osed

case f i l e of t he 2004- 2005 i nvest i gat i on, and l at er , t he use of t he

pr of i l e i n suppor t of t he war r ant i n t he 2011 f eder al case.

The i ssue ar i ses because t he swab mat er i al was col l ect ed

i n 2005 by post al i nspect ors' ser vi ce on Thomas of a gr and j ur y

subpoena, gi ven by a cl er k of cour t t o a U. S. At t or ney on r equest .

Ther e was no j udi ci al or ot her grand j ury i nvol vement i n i ssuance

of t he 2005 gr and j ur y subpoena, and i t was not i ssued i n

-2-


3/26

conj unct i on wi t h an ar r est or a det er mi nat i on of pr obabl e cause or

some l esser s t andar d. Whi l e we agr ee wi t h Thomas t hat t he met hod

of obt ai ni ng hi s DNA, under Mar yl and v. Ki ng, 133 S. Ct . 1958

( 2013) , vi ol ated t he Four t h Amendment , we af f i r m, under Herr i ng v.

Uni t ed St at es, 555 U. S. 135 ( 2009) , t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of

Thomas' s mot i on t o suppress i n 2011.

I .

The undi sput ed under l yi ng f act s ar e as f ol l ows.

A. The 2004- 2005 I nvest i gat i on

I n 2004, a thr eat eni ng l et t er i n an envel ope cont ai ni ng

an uni dent i f i ed whi t e powder was mai l ed t o Aust i n Prepar at or y

School i n Readi ng, Massachuset t s. The l et t er bor e an "East er n

Mai ne 044" post mark, meani ng t hat i t was pr ocessed i n Hampden,

Mai ne, whi ch pr ocesses al l mai l f r omnor t her n Mai ne. Odet t e Kent ,

a school secret ar y, opened t he l et t er , and t hen r evi ewed t he

school ' s al umni database to determi ne how many al umni l i ved i n the

area associ ated wi t h the "East ern Mai ne 044" post mark on t he

l et t er . Af t er f i ndi ng t hat Thomas1 l i ved i n t he ar ea of nor t her n

Mai ne associ ated wi t h thi s post mark, Kent passed on hi s name t o her

husband, U. S. Post al I nspect or Wi l l i am Kent . When t he school

r ecei ved a second t hr eat eni ng l et t er f r om t he same post al ar ea

wher e Thomas l i ved, Mi chael Desr osi er s, anot her Post al I nspect or

1 At t he t i me, Thomas' s name was Shawn P. Hi ggi ns, t hough hehas si nce changed i t t o Mi chael Thomas. We r ef er t o hi m as"Thomas" t hr oughout .

-3-


4/26

st at i oned i n Por t l and, Mai ne, dr af t ed a l et t er r equest i ng a gr and

j ury subpoena of Thomas f r om t he U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce i n

Por t l and. The r equest was gr ant ed. The U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce,

wi t hout consul t i ng a f eder al gr and j ur y, obt ai ned a subpoena f r om

a cour t on J anuary 18, 2005. The subpoena, gi ven t o t he post al

i nspect or s, or der ed Thomas ei t her t o appear bef or e t he gr and j ur y

si t t i ng i n Bangor , Mai ne on Febr uar y 7, 2005, or t o compl y wi t h t he

subpoena by pr ovi di ng a DNA sampl e, f i ngerpr i nt s, and a handwr i t i ng

exempl ar di r ect l y t o t he post al i nspect or s.

Wi l l i amKent , Desr osi er s' s super vi sor at t he t i me, dr ove

t o Thomas' s home i n Madawaska, Mai ne on J anuar y 19, 2005 ( about an

ei ght - hour r ound t r i p dr i ve f r omBangor ) t o serve t he subpoena. He

gave Thomas t he subpoena and tol d hi mt hat he coul d ei t her make t he

r ound t r i p t o Bangor t o compl y wi t h t he subpoena or pr ovi de the

r equi r ed mat er i al s at t he l ocal pol i ce st at i on. Thomas chose t he

l ocal opt i on and pr ovi ded t he r equi si t e sampl es, i ncl udi ng a cheek

swab f or t he DNA. 2 Dur i ng t hi s exchange, Thomas was not advi sed he

2 The Supr eme Cour t r ecent l y descr i bed t he natur e of t he swabused t o obt ai n a DNA sampl e:

A buccal swab i s a f ar more gent l e pr ocess t han aveni punct ur e t o dr aw bl ood. I t i nvol ves but a l i ghtt ouch on t he i nsi de of t he cheek; and al t hough i t can be

deemed a sear ch wi t hi n t he body of t he ar r est ee, i tr equi r es no "sur gi cal i nt r usi ons beneat h t he ski n. " Thef act t hat an i nt r usi on i s negl i gi bl e i s of cent r alr el evance t o det er mi ni ng r easonabl eness, al t hough i t i sst i l l a sear ch as t he l aw def i nes t hat t er m.

Maryl and v. Ki ng, 133 S. Ct . 1958, 1969 ( 2013) ( quot i ng Wi nst on v.Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 760 ( 1985) ) .

-4-


5/26

coul d r ef use t o compl y wi t h t he subpoena. The di st r i ct cour t hel d

t hat t he recor d di d not support a f i ndi ng t hat Thomas was aware of

hi s r i ght t o r ef use t o gi ve t he sampl es. 3

Thomas' s buccal swab was sent by t he post al i nspect or s

f or anal ysi s t o Or chi d Cel l mar k, I nc. , a pr i vat e company t hat

pr ovi des t est i ng servi ces t o gover nment agenci es. Whi l e t hey wer e

wai t i ng f or t he r esul t s f r omOr chi d Cel l mar k, t he post al i nspect or s

cont i nued t hei r i nvest i gat i on, and had an anal yst i n t hei r f or ensi c

l aboratory compare Thomas' s handwr i t i ng exempl ar t o t he handwr i t i ng

on t he Aust i n Pr ep l et t er s. Based i n par t on t he anal yst ' s bel i ef

t hat Thomas was t he aut hor of t he l et t ers, Kent and Desr osi ers went

t o Thomas' s home t o i nt ervi ew hi m on J une 22, 2005. Dur i ng t hat

meet i ng, t hey i nf or med hi m of t he r esul t s of t he handwr i t i ng

anal ysi s, but Thomas deni ed sendi ng t he l et t er s.

I n Febr uary 2006, Or chi d Cel l mark pr ovi ded t he DNA r eport

and anal ysi s t o t he U. S. Post al I nspect i on Ser vi ce ( USPI S)

l abor at or y. The r esul t s i ndi cat ed t hat Thomas, on t he basi s of hi s

DNA, coul d be excl uded as t he sour ce of t he DNA r ecover ed f r omt he

st amps on t he t hr eat eni ng l et t er s t o Aust i n Pr ep. At t ached t o t he

r epor t was Thomas' s DNA pr of i l e, as depi ct ed i n t abl es l i st i ng t he

3 The government argued t hat Thomas' s past cr i mi nal hi st oryand pr evi ous i nt er act i ons wi t h l aw enf or cement i ndi cat ed t hat hi scompl i ance wi t h t he subpoena was vol unt ary. I n 1998 he wasconvi ct ed of maki ng a f al se appl i cat i on on a f i r ear ms of f ense, andi n 1999 he was convi ct ed of st al ki ng, an of f ense f or whi ch heserved one year i n pr i son.

-5-


6/26

genet i c mar ker s f ound at a number of di f f er ent l ocat i ons on t he

genet i c mat er i al . The i nvest i gat i on i nt o t hese l et t er s was cl osed

i n J une 2006, and Thomas was not charged wi t h any cr i me. The

evi dence was never pr esent ed to a gr and j ur y dur i ng thi s

i nvest i gat i on. 4

B. The 2011 I nvest i gat i on

I n ear l y 2011, t he of f i ces of Mai ne Gover nor Paul LePage

and Wi sconsi n Gover nor Scot t Wal ker began r ecei vi ng anonymous,

t hr eat eni ng l et t er s. One l et t er t o Gover nor LePage st at ed t hat t he

sender was "READY TO VOTE WI TH A BULLET" and vowed t o " STRI KE WHEN

YOU LEAST EXPECT I T, " whi l e one of t he l et t er s sent t o Wal ker

st at ed t hat Wal ker "SHOULD BE SHOT DEAD" and that hi s "FAMI LY

SHOULD BE KI LLED. " Si mi l ar l y t hr eat eni ng l et t er s wer e al so sent t o

Senator J oseph Li eberman and Congr essman St eve Ki ng. I nvest i gators

were abl e t o recover a DNA sampl e f r omat l east one of t he Governor

LePage l et t er s. The FBI cont act ed Desr osi er s, who was st i l l a

Post al I nspect or i n Mai ne, f or assi st ance i n par si ng t he post mar ks

and ot her char act er i st i cs of t he mai l i ngs.

On March 21, 2011, Desr osi ers at t ended a meet i ng wi t h

anot her post al i nspect or and t he two FBI Speci al Agent s wor ki ng on

4 I ndeed, had t he DNA evi dence been pr esent ed t o a gr and j ur yi n 2004- 2005, t he excl usi onar y r ul e woul d not have pr ecl uded t heuse of t he DNA swab i n t hat cont ext , even had t here been a Four t hAmendment vi ol at i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Cal andr a, 414 U. S. 338, 349-53 ( 1974) . Had t he gr and j ury i ssued an i ndi ct ment , we have no wayof knowi ng whether addi t i onal pr ocess woul d have been f ol l owed t oobt ai n DNA sampl es f or use at t r i al .

-6-


7/26

t he case. The agent s shar ed t hat t hei r possi bl e suspect ' s addr ess

was at Lor i ng House on Br i ght on Avenue i n Por t l and, Mai ne; t hey

al so f ocused on how t o obt ai n t he suspect ' s DNA wi t hout arousi ng

hi s suspi ci on. The ment i on of t he Lor i ng House addr ess spar ked

Desr osi er s' s memor y; he di scl osed t hat i n 2008, he had assi st ed i n

an FBI i nvest i gat i on i n whi ch Thomas was t he tar get , and at t hat

t i me Thomas r esi ded at t hat addr ess i n Por t l and. Dur i ng t he 2008

i nvest i gat i on, Desr osi er s had pul l ed t he t hen- ar chi ved case f i l e

f r omt he Aust i n Prep i nvest i gat i on, and t he Mar ch 21, 2011 meet i ng

pr ompt ed hi m t o r evi ew t he or i gi nal 2005 f i l e once agai n.

The or i gi nal i nvest i gat i on f i l e i ncl uded a "Dest r uct i on

Cer t i f i cat e" whi ch i ndi cat ed t hat t he or i gi nal buccal swabs

obt ai ned i n 2005 wer e dest r oyed, pur suant t o the USPI S pr ot ocol f or

of f i ci al l y cl os i ng i nvest i gat i ons . 5 Desr osi er s al so di scover ed

t hat a page of Thomas' s DNA pr of i l e f r omt he Or chi d Cel l mar k repor t

was mi ssi ng f r om t he f i l e; af t er r ecei vi ng per mi ssi on t o r equest

t he pr of i l e page f r om t he USPI S l ab, Desr osi er s acqui r ed t he

mi ssi ng page of t he r epor t f r om Or chi d Cel l mar k. The Mai ne St at e

Pol i ce Labor at or y concl uded t hat Thomas' s DNA pr of i l e f r om t he

2004- 2005 i nvest i gat i on mat ched t he DNA pr of i l e of t he sal i va f ound

on t hr ee of t he 2011 l et t er s. Appar ent l y t he i nvest i gat or s di d not

5 Dur i ng t he suppr essi on hear i ng bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t ,Desr osi ers expl ai ned t hat t he DNA sampl e was dest r oyed pur suant t oUSPI S pol i cy per t ai ni ng t o cer t ai n physi cal evi dence. He was neverasked about any pol i ci es gover ni ng t he r et ent i on of i nvest i gat i vef i l es.

-7-


8/26

have f i nger pr i nt s f r om t hese l et t er s t o mat ch agai nst t he

f i nger pr i nt s t aken f r om Thomas ear l i er .

On March 24, 2011, t he FBI obt ai ned a cr i mi nal compl ai nt ,

a war r ant f or Thomas' s ar r est , al ong wi t h sear ch war r ant s f or

Thomas' s Por t l and, Mai ne apar t ment and anot her cheek swab. The

war r ant and compl ai nt wer e obt ai ned ent i r el y on t he basi s of an

af f i davi t f r omFBI Speci al Agent Pamel a Fl i ck. Fl i ck' s af f i davi t

was based ent i r el y on t he mat ch bet ween t he r et r i eved 2004- 2005 DNA

pr of i l e and t he DNA pr of i l e t aken f r om t he 2011 t hr eat eni ng

l et t er s. Fur t her , t he 2011 Fl i ck af f i davi t , wr i t t en si x year s

af t er t he i ni t i al DNA swab was obt ai ned, was t he f i r st t i me t hat

t he 2005 pr of i l e was pr esent ed t o a f ederal magi st r ate. Thomas was

ar r est ed the next day. 6

Af t er hi s arr est , Thomas conf essed t o t he 2011 cr i mes.

He al so conf essed t o havi ng sent t he t hr eat eni ng l et t er s t o Aust i n

Prep. The di sconnect bet ween t hi s conf essi on and t he f i ndi ngs of

t he 2005 DNA anal ysi s coul d have been produced by Thomas s i mpl y

havi ng another person l i ck t he st amps on t hose envel opes.

6 Thomas ent er ed a condi t i onal pl ea of gui l t y t o t he f ol l owi ngcount s: t wo count s of t hr eat eni ng t o mur der members of Congr ess i nvi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 115( a) ( 1) ( B) and 115( b) ( 4) , one count of

mai l i ng t hr eat eni ng communi cat i ons i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 876( c) , one count of possessi on of a f i r ear m by a f el on i nvi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) , and one count ofi nt er net st al ki ng i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 2261A( 2) . The cour tsent enced hi m t o 71 mont hs' i mpr i sonment ; he i s pr esent l y i npr i son. The suppr essi on quest i on i s t he onl y i ssue bef or e us i nt hi s appeal .

-8-


9/26

C. Di st r i ct Cour t Pr oceedi ngs

I n an or der dat ed Sept ember 30, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t

deni ed Thomas' s mot i on t o suppr ess. The cour t f ound i t unnecessary

t o deci de whet her t he t aki ng of t he swab vi ol at ed t he Four t h

Amendment . Thomas, 815 F. Supp. 2d at 388- 89. I t di d conduct an

evi dent i ary hear i ng and anal yzed t he l aw on i ssuance of gr and j ur y

subpoenas. Such subpoenas coul d cl ear l y be used t o obt ai n

handwr i t i ng exempl ar s and f i nger pr i nt s. Uni t ed St at es v. Di oni si o,

410 U. S. 1, 14- 15 ( 1973) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mar a, 410 U. S. 19, 21

( 1973) . But as t o t he i ssue of obt ai ni ng DNA by bodi l y i nt r usi on,

t he l ower cour t s wer e spl i t as t o what st andar d shoul d be used t o

obt ai n such evi dence by gr and j ur y subpoena. The cour t f ound t hat

i t need not r esol ve whether Thomas consent ed t o t he search. The

cour t al so assumed t hat i f t here was a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on

i n t he obt ai ni ng of t he DNA i n 2005, t he excl usi onar y rul e woul d

have appl i ed t o a pr osecut i on f or t he 2004 mai l i ngs. 7

However , t he cour t concl uded that even i f t her e wer e

er r or s and i nadequaci es i n t he 2005 l egal pr ocess t hat obt ai ned t he

DNA pr of i l e, t he excl usi onar y r ul e di d not cal l f or i t s excl usi on

i n t hi s new and unr el at ed 2011 char ge f or cr i mi nal conduct t hat

occur r ed i n 2011.

7 The cour t r ej ect ed t he ar gument s t hat a separ at e vi ol at i onoccur r ed when t he post al i nspect ors obt ai ned t he mi ss i ng page oft he pr of i l e t o compl et e t hei r f i l e i n 2011 or when t he i nf or mat i onwas r et ai ned.

-9-


10/26

Rel yi ng on Her r i ng v. Uni t ed St at es, supr a, t he cour t

concl uded t hat t he excl usi onar y rul e shoul d not be appl i ed because

t her e was no f l agr ant or del i ber at e pol i ce mi sconduct at any poi nt ,

and appl i cat i on of t he excl usi onar y rul e woul d have l i t t l e

det er r ent val ue, gi ven t hi s absence. The cost s of excl usi on, t he

cour t r easoned, out wei ghed t he benef i t s. Thomas, 815 F. Supp. 2d

at 389.

I I .

A. St andar d of Revi ew

I n an appeal f r omt he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on

t o suppr ess, we r evi ew de novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi ons of

l aw. Uni t ed St at es v. Bar nes, 506 F. 3d 58, 61- 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

We r evi ew f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear err or . Uni t ed St at es v.

I nf ant e, 701 F. 3d 386, 392 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . The f act s ar e l ar gel y

agr eed upon; we revi ew de novo the l egal concl usi ons dr awn f r om

t hem. The st r uct ur e of our anal ysi s f ol l ows t hose ar gument s

pr esent ed on appeal and does not engage i n i ssues not appeal ed by

Thomas.

B. Excl usi onar y Rul e

Thomas seeks excl usi on of al l evi dence der i ved f r om t he

t aki ng, r et ent i on, di scl osur e, or use of t he DNA sampl e or pr of i l e

obt ai ned i n 2005. Thi s i ncl udes the 2011 sear ch and ar r est

war r ant s.

-10-


11/26

The Four t h Amendment cause r equi r ement wi l l bar t he use

of t he excl usi onar y r ul e i f t her e i s no but - f or causal connect i on

between the Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on and l ater di scover y of

evi dence. Nar done v. Uni t ed St at es, 308 U. S. 338, 341 ( 1939) . The

causat i on nexus has been met her e. The government concedes t hat

but f or t he use of t he r et ai ned DNA pr of i l e, t he pol i ce woul d not

have been abl e t o suppl y pr obabl e cause t o search Thomas' s home,

ar r est hi m, or obt ai n a new DNA sampl e f r om hi m i n 2011.

That concessi on does not di ct at e t he r esul t of our

excl usi onar y r ul e anal ysi s. Hudson v. Mi chi gan, 547 U. S. 586, 592

( 2006) ( "Our cases show t hat but - f or causal i t y i s onl y a necessary,

not a suf f i ci ent , condi t i on f or suppr essi on. ") ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Di ehl , 276 F. 3d 32, 44- 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( decl i ni ng t o

appl y t he excl usi onar y r ul e i n t he absence of pol i ce mi sconduct

even wher e t he "cr i t i cal pi ece of evi dence f or t he sear ch war r ant "

was obt ai ned vi a a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on) .

The excl usi onar y r ul e i s "desi gned t o saf eguar d Four t h

Amendment r i ght s gener al l y t hr ough i t s det er r ent ef f ect . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Cal andr a, 414 U. S. 338, 348 ( 1974) ; see Davi s v. Uni t ed

St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2419, 2426 ( 2011) ( "The [ excl usi onar y] r ul e' s

sol e pur pose . . . i s t o det er f ut ur e Four t h Amendment vi ol at i ons. "

( emphasi s added) ) . Excl usi on i s not an aut omat i c consequence of a

Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on, but r at her i s avai l abl e onl y wher e the

benef i t s of det er r i ng t he pol i ce mi sconduct t hat pr oduced t he

-11-


12/26

vi ol at i on out wei gh t he cost s of excl udi ng r el evant evi dence.

Her r i ng, 555 U. S. at 141.

I mpor t ant l y, i n Her r i ng, a case i nvol vi ng a negl i gent

mi st ake, t he Cour t hel d:

To t r i gger t he excl usi onar y r ul e, pol i ceconduct must be suf f i ci ent l y del i ber at e t hatexcl usi on can meani ngf ul l y det er i t , andsuf f i ci ent l y cul pabl e t hat such det er r ence i swor t h t he pr i ce pai d by t he j ust i cesyst em. . . . [ T] he excl usi onar y r ul e ser vest o det er del i ber at e, r eckl ess, or gr ossl ynegl i gent conduct , or i n some ci r cumst ancesr ecur r i ng or syst emi c negl i gence.

555 U. S. at 144. 8 There i s no ser i ous argument pr esent ed t hat

Her r i ng' s det er r ence- based anal yt i cal st andar ds ar e l i mi t ed t o

cases of err or pr oduced by negl i gence, and we appl y t hose st andards

here.

Si gni f i cant l y f or our pur poses, t he Her r i ng cri t er i a al so

i ncl ude consi der at i on of whet her t he pol i ce er r or i s "at t enuat ed"

f r om t he event s t hat occur f ol l owi ng t he er r or . "At t enuat i on" i s

pr esent ed by Herr i ng as a necessary component of i t s det err ence

anal ysi s. Wher e an er r or " ar i ses f r omnonr ecur r i ng and at t enuat ed

negl i gence, " t he Cour t hel d, i t i s "f ar r emoved f r om t he cor e

concer ns t hat l ed us t o adopt t he [ excl usi onar y] r ul e i n t he f i r st

pl ace, " and because t he r esul t i ng det er r ent val ue i s necessar i l y

mi ni mal , excl usi on i s not war r ant ed. 555 U. S. at 144.

8 Thi s case does not i nvol ve any cl ai mof syst emi c negl i gence,r ecor d- keepi ng er r or s, or gover nment use of f al se i nf or mat i on. Cf .Her r i ng, 555 U. S. at 145- 46.

-12-


13/26

Thomas mount s Four t h Amendment at t acks on t he pol i ce

conduct at ever y st age: t he or i gi nal conduct i n obt ai ni ng t he swab,

t he r et ent i on of t he DNA pr of i l e mat er i al i n t he cl osed case f i l e

of t he 2004- 2005 i nvest i gat i on ( i ncl udi ng t he obt ai ni ng a

r epl acement copy f r om Or chi d Cel l mar k i n 2011) , and t he

t r ansmi ssi on of t he mat er i al t o i nvest i gat or s i n 2011.

1. 2004- 2005 Postal I nspect or Conduct

The Supreme Cour t has r ecent l y hel d t hat t he t aki ng of a

DNA sampl e f r oman arr est ee usi ng a buccal swab on t he i nsi de of a

per son' s cheek i s a sear ch. Mar yl and v. Ki ng, 133 S. Ct . 1958,

1968- 69 ( 2013) . Cer t ai n consequences f ol l ow f r omt he hol di ng t hat

i s a sear ch. We agr ee wi t h Thomas that t he obt ai ni ng of t he buccal

swab i s a vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment on t he f act s of t hi s

case. That i s because si nce t hi s was a sear ch, under pr esent l aw

t he mer e use of a gr and j ur y f orm, wi t hout any j udi ci al or even

gr and j ur y i nvol vement and no det er mi nat i on of t he basi s f or such

an i nt r usi on, i s i nadequat e. We bypass t he i ssue of whet her

Thomas, t o asser t t he cl ai m, was r equi r ed t o obj ect t o t he subpoena

or seek a hear i ng t o t hat ef f ect at t he t i me, and assume he i s f r ee

t o pr esent t he cl ai m now. 9

9 Thomas never chal l enged t he gr and j ur y subpoena ei t herbef ore or af t er hi s compl i ance wi t h i t i n 2005. The gover nmentf ur t her cont ends t hat even assumi ng t he t aki ng of t he DNA sampl epur suant t o t he gr and j ur y subpoena was a sear ch, Thomas consentedt o i t . See Val e v. Loui si ana, 399 U. S. 30, 35 ( 1970) ( no Four t hAmendment vi ol at i on where a sear ch i s aut hor i zed by consent ) . Butas t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed, t he passage of t i me al so makes i t

-13-


14/26

Though grand j ury proceedi ngs ar e ent i t l ed t o a

"pr esumpt i on of r egul ar i t y, " I n r e Lopr eat o, 511 F. 2d 1150, 1152

( 1st Ci r . 1975) , t he gr and j ur y i s al so "wi t hout power t o i nvade a

l egi t i mat e pr i vacy i nt er est pr ot ect ed by the Four t h Amendment , "

Cal andr a, 414 U. S. at 346. I n or der t o deci de whet her Thomas' s

r i ght s were vi ol ated here, we do not need t o deci de under what

Four t h Amendment st andar d a grand j ur y may obt ai n a DNA sampl e

t hr ough i nt r usi ve per sonal sampl es by i nvest i gat i ve means.

More general l y, t he Supr eme Cour t has sai d t hat t he

st andard governi ng gr and j ur y subpoenas i s somethi ng l ess t han

pr obabl e cause, r easoni ng t hat " t he Government cannot be requi r ed

t o j ust i f y t he i ssuance of a gr and j ur y subpoena by pr esent i ng

evi dence suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause because t he ver y

pur pose of r equest i ng t he i nf or mat i on i s t o ascer t ai n whet her

pr obabl e cause exi st s. " Uni t ed St at es v. R. Ent er s. , I nc. , 498

U. S. 292, 297 ( 1991) . Of cour se, t her e i s a qual i t at i ve di f f er ence

between t he document s compel l ed by t he subpoena i n R. Ent erpr i ses

and t he DNA sampl e compel l ed here; R. Ent erpr i ses i nvol ved t he

pr oduct i on of document s i n whi ch t he company di d not have a Four t h

mor e di f f i cul t t o assess whet her Thomas vol unt ar i l y consent ed t o

gi ve t he DNA sampl e when he compl i ed wi t h t he subpoena. Whet her ani ndi vi dual consent ed t o a sear ch i s "a quest i on of f act t o bedet er mi ned f r om t he t ot al i t y of al l t he ci r cumst ances. "Schneckl oth v. Bust amont e, 412 U. S. 218, 227 ( 1973) . Thepr osecut i on bear s t he bur den of pr oof on t hi s i nqui r y. I d. at 222.Whi l e we do not r esol ve t he i ssue, we assume, i n Thomas' s f avor , hedi d not consent .

-14-


15/26

Amendment i nt er est . What i s cl ear her e i s t hat t her e was no

det er mi nat i on by a gr and j ur y or a j udge of whet her any par t i cul ar

l evel of Four t h Amendment j ust i f i cat i on had been met t o j ust i f y the

gr and j ur y subpoena f or t he DNA sampl e. On t hat basi s al one, we

concl ude hi s Four t h Amendment r i ght s were t hen vi ol ated.

Our i ssue, t hough, i s not whet her Thomas' s r i ght s wer e

vi ol at ed, but whet her t he Her r i ng t est f or appl i cat i on of t he

excl usi onar y r ul e has been sat i sf i ed. The di st r i ct cour t ' s

det er mi nat i on, af t er a hear i ng and suppor t ed by the evi dence, f ound

t hat t he pol i ce conduct "was not f l agr ant or del i ber at e" wi t hi n t he

meani ng of Her r i ng. Thomas, 815 F. Supp. 2d at 38. There i s no

evi dence her e t hat t he post al i nspect or s i nvol ved i n obt ai ni ng and

execut i ng t he subpoena knowi ngl y engaged i n any mi sconduct . 10

Wi l l i am Kent t est i f i ed dur i ng t he suppr essi on hear i ng t hat he

r ecal l ed ot her i nvest i gat or s r equest i ng DNA sampl es by use of gr and

j ury subpoenas bef or e t he Aust i n Pr ep i nvest i gat i on, and t hat t hose

r equest s had pr oduced usef ul i nf or mat i on. Kent ' s t est i mony was

t hat whi l e request i ng a DNA sampl e i n a gr and j ury subpoena may not

10 Ther e has been an "est abl i shed pr act i ce" of al l owi ng t heU. S. At t or ney t o i ssue subpoenas i n or der t o secur e and br i ngevi dence bef or e a gr and j ur y. I n r e Lopr eat o, 511 F. 2d at 1153;

see al so I n r e Gr and J ur y Mat t er s, 751 F. 2d 13, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 1984)( "Al t hough gr and j ur y subpoenas ar e i ssued i n t he name of t hedi st r i ct cour t , t hey ar e i ssued pr o f or ma and i n bl ank t o anyoner equest i ng t hem wi t hout pr i or cour t appr oval or cont r ol . " ) . WhenDesr osi er s r equest ed a gr and j ur y subpoena f r omt he U. S. At t or ney' sOf f i ce i n Mai ne, at l east f or f i nger pr i nt dat a, he was act i ngwi t hi n t he scope of normal l aw enf orcement conduct .

-15-


16/26

have been ever yday pr act i ce, i t was not consi dered an i l l egal

act i on at t he t i me. 11

Thomas ar gues t hat appl yi ng t he excl usi onar y r ul e i n t hi s

2011 case woul d deter any f ut ur e use of mere f orms f or gr and j ur y

subpoenas obt ai ned by the U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce t o obt ai n DNA

swabs. I f t hat pr act i ce as t o gr and j ur i es has cont i nued ( and we

do not know i f i t has) , excl usi on ar guabl y coul d det er such conduct

as t o gr and j ur y pr act i ce. Even so, t he Supr eme Cour t has sai d

t hat woul d not j ust i f y excl usi on at t he gr and j ur y l evel .

Cal andr a, 414 U. S. at 349- 53.

The det er r ence quest i on her e i s di f f er ent . Turni ng, as

we must under Her r i ng, t o t he at t enuat i on and l arger det err ence

quest i ons, t her e i s a maj or at t enuat i on pr obl emwi t h hi s det er r ence

ar gument . Had t her e been a pr osecut i on r esul t i ng f r om t he 2004-

2005 i nvest i gat i on whi ch used t hat DNA sampl e, we agr ee t hat t here

woul d have been some deter r ence val ue i n excl udi ng such evi dence i f

i t t hen had been obt ai ned by nothi ng more t han use of a subpoena

f or m. No such pr osecut i on ul t i mat el y occur r ed, so t he i ssue of

possi bl e vi ol at i on of Thomas' s r i ght s never came up. And he never

sought dest r uct i on of t he dat a.

11 I n 2005, nei t her our ci r cui t nor t he Supr eme Cour t hadspoken deci si vel y on the Four t h Amendment i mpl i cat i ons of a cheekswab l i ke t he one used here. The Supr eme Cour t char acter i zed t hepr ocess of "usi ng a buccal swab on t he i nner t i ssues of a per son' scheek i n or der t o obt ai n DNA sampl es" as a sear ch f or t he f i r stt i me i n 2013. Ki ng, 133 S. Ct . at 1968- 69.

-16-


17/26

I t i s di f f i cul t t o see why suppr essi on i n t hi s l at er and

unf or eseen pr osecut i on of an of f ense not yet commi t t ed at t he t i me

of t he search woul d have act ed t o deter t he l aw enf orcement agent s

i n t he 2011 case f r om act i ng i mpr oper l y any more than t hey woul d

have al r eady been det er r ed by knowl edge t hat t he resul t s of t he

sear ch woul d l i kel y have been excl uded at t r i al of t he of f ense

bei ng i nvest i gat ed.

Thomas' s hypot hesi zed det er r ent ef f ect i s si mpl y t oo

at t enuat ed t o j ust i f y appl yi ng t he excl usi onar y r ul e under Her r i ng.

The under l yi ng conduct t hat vi ol at ed t he Four t h Amendment t ook

pl ace si x or seven years ago, and t he connect i on between t he 2005

i nvest i gat i on and t he 2011 l et t er s was l ar gel y a r esul t of

happenst ance. Fi r st , t he connect i on t ur ned on t he Lor i ng House

addr ess, whi ch Desr osi ers happened t o remember f r om a 2008

i nvest i gat i on, not t he 2005 i nvest i gat i on, dur i ng t he 2011 meet i ng

wi t h FBI agent s. Second, i t was happenst ance t hat i t was

Desr osi er s who was i nvol ved i n bot h the 2005 and 2011

i nvest i gat i ons.

The ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t he i ssuance and ser vi ce of

t hi s subpoena and t he subpoena' s at t enuat ed r el at i onshi p t o t he

2011 i nvest i gat i on pl ai nl y do not j ust i f y excl usi on under Her r i ng.

2. Retent i on of the DNA Repor t

Thomas separ at el y cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

i n concl udi ng t hat t her e was al so no wr ongdoi ng i nher ent i n t he

-17-


18/26

unobj ect ed- t o r et ent i on of t he DNA pr of i l e af t er t he 2004- 2005

i nvest i gat i on was cl osed. He so concl udes, based l ar gel y on t he

f act no char ges wer e br ought agai nst hi m f r omt hat i nvest i gat i on.

We di sagree wi t h hi s concl usi on. Even were we t o assume he hel d

some Four t h Amendment i nt er est i n t he non- r et ent i on of t he dat a, i t

woul d st i l l be i nsuf f i ci ent t o war r ant excl usi on.

Fi r st , t he buccal swab sampl e i t sel f was dest r oyed i n

2006, l eavi ng onl y one page of t he two- page DNA pr of i l e i n Thomas' s

f i l e. 12 That DNA pr of i l e, whi ch i s compr i sed of 13 l oci t aken f r om

t he "non- pr ot ei n codi ng j unk regi ons of DNA, " i s usef ul onl y f or

i dent i f i cat i on pur poses. Ki ng, 133 S. Ct . at 1968. Thomas' s DNA

sampl e coul d not have been used t o di scer n anyt hi ng other t han hi s

i dent i t y. 13 That i s because such " j unk DNA, " " whi l e usef ul and even

di sposi t i ve f or pur poses l i ke i dent i t y, does not show mor e f ar -

r eachi ng and compl ex char act er i st i cs l i ke genet i c t r ai t s. " I d. at

1967.

12 As a r esul t of a 2005 cl er i cal er r or , t he DNA r epor t t hatOr chi d Cel l mar k or i gi nal l y sent t o t he post al i nspect or s wasmi ss i ng one of t he pages of Thomas' s DNA pr of i l e. Once i t becamecl ear t o Desr osi er s and ot her s i n 2011 t hat t hei r f i l e wasi ncompl et e, Desr osi er s cont act ed Or chi d Cel l mar k t o request t hecompl et e pr of i l e. Or chi d Cel l mar k f ul f i l l ed t hat r equest i n l at eMar ch 2011.

13 We do not r each hypothet i cal concerns not pr esent ed by t hi scase. Accor d Uni t ed St at es v. Wei ker t , 504 F. 3d 1, 13 ( 1st Ci r .2007) ( whi l e t he possi bi l i t y t hat j unk DNA may someday be used t odi scer n t r ai t s beyond a per son' s i dent i t y coul d event ual l y changet he pr i vacy i mpl i cat i ons of col l ect i ng a DNA sampl e, t hathypothet i cal concer n does not change Four t h Amendment anal ysi sunder pr esent condi t i ons) .

-18-


19/26

Second, i t i s t r ue t hat "f i nger pr i nt s and ot her per sonal

r ecor ds are r out i nel y mai nt ai ned i n l aw enf or cement f i l es once

t aken, " Uni t ed St at es v. Wei ker t , 504 F. 3d 1, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ki ncade, 379 F. 3d 813, 842 n. 3 ( 9t h Ci r .

2004) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , and on t he f act s of t hi s

case i t i s pl ai n t hat t he r epor t on Thomas' s DNA pr of i l e was

r et ai ned ( and l at er used) i n much t he same f ashi on as a f i nger pr i nt

exempl ar . And t he r et ent i on of t hat pr of i l e i n t hese ci r cumst ances

vi ol at ed no st at ut e, t hus gi vi ng r i se t o no cl ai ms of even

depar t ur e f r om st at ut or y nor ms.

I n suppor t of hi s ar gument t hat hi s r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed

by t he gover nment ' s r et ent i on of hi s DNA pr of i l e, Thomas ar gues,

i ncor r ect l y, t hat t he pol i ce ci r cumvent ed and under mi ned t he DNA

Anal ysi s Backl og El i mi nat i on Act of 2000 ( "DNA Act " ) , Pub. L. No.

106- 546, 114 St at . 2726 (2000) ( codi f i ed as amended i n scat t er ed

sect i ons of 10 U. S. C. , 18 U. S. C. , 28 U. S. C. and 42 U. S. C. ) . Thi s,

he says, was mi sconduct .

By i t s t erms t he DNA Act does not appl y here. 14 The Act

gover ns t he col l ect i on and r et ent i on of DNA sampl es of i ndi vi dual s

who have been convi ct ed of "a qual i f yi ng Feder al of f ense, " and who

14 Thomas ar gues t hat suppr essi on i s warr ant ed here i n partbecause excl usi on coul d "det er pol i ce avoi dance of t he DNA Act . "Thi s ar gument i s cl ear l y wi t hout mer i t . As we expl ai n, i t i s pl ai nt hat none of t he act i vi t y i n t hi s case came wi t hi n t he ambi t of t heAct , and we r ej ect Thomas' s asser t i on t hat t he post al i nspect or swere somehow "avoi di ng" a st atut e t o whi ch t hey si mpl y were notsubj ect.

-19-


20/26

ar e i ncar cer at ed or on par ol e, pr obat i on, or super vi sed r el ease.

42 U. S. C. 14135a( a) ( 1) ( B) , ( a) ( 2) . Once a DNA sampl e i s

col l ect ed under t he Act , t he FBI uses t he sampl e t o cr eat e a uni que

DNA pr of i l e, whi ch i s ent ered i nt o t he Combi ned DNA I ndex Syst em

( CODI S) , a cent r al i zed dat abase t hat i ncl udes pr of i l es of st at e and

f eder al of f ender s, as wel l as f or ensi c pr of i l es obt ai ned f r omcr i me

scene evi dence. 15 Bor oi an v. Muel l er , 616 F. 3d 60, 63 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) . Because Thomas was not char ged wi t h nor convi ct ed of a

qual i f yi ng of f ense i n 2005, hi s DNA sampl e was nei t her col l ect ed

nor r et ai ned pur suant t o t he DNA Act . On a pl ai n t ext r eadi ng of

t he st at ut e, t he Act ' s r equi r ement s, i ncl udi ng i t s expungement

pr ovi si ons, 16 do not appl y t o Thomas, as hi s DNA pr of i l e was never

ent er ed i nt o CODI S i n t he f i r st pl ace.

15 CODI S i s a hi ghl y val uabl e i nvest i gat i ve t ool f or l awenf or cement , as i t per mi t s " st at e and l ocal f or ensi c l abor at or i est o exchange and compare DNA pr of i l es el ect r oni cal l y i n an at t emptt o l i nk evi dence f r omcr i me scenes f or whi ch t her e ar e no suspect st o DNA sampl es of convi ct ed of f ender s on f i l e i n t he syst em. "Bor oi an v. Muel l er , 616 F. 3d 60, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng H. R.Rep. No. 106- 900, pt . 1, at 27 ( 2000) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ksomi t t ed) ; see al so Ki ng, 133 S. Ct . at 1968 ( " I n shor t , CODI S set suni f or m nat i onal st andar ds f or DNA mat chi ng and t hen f aci l i t at esconnect i ons bet ween l ocal l aw enf orcement agenci es who can sharemor e speci f i c i nf or mat i on about mat ched [ DNA] pr of i l es. " ) .

16 The DNA Act ' s expungement pr ovi si ons r equi r e t he FBI t o"pr ompt l y expunge f r om t he [ CODI S] i ndex . . . t he DNA anal ysi s ofa per son i ncl uded i n t he i ndex" who, per a cour t or der , has beenacqui t t ed, has had char ges di smi ssed, or has had hi s or herqual i f yi ng convi ct i on over t ur ned. 42 U. S. C. 14132( d) ( 1)( emphases added) . The st at ut e i s si l ent on t he quest i on ofexpungement f r om i ndi vi dual pol i ce i nvest i gat i on f i l es.

-20-


21/26

I n Wei ker t , we not ed t hat t he combi nat i on of a bl ood

dr aw, t he cr eat i on of t he DNA pr of i l e, and t he ent r y of a DNA

pr of i l e i nt o CODI S i mpl i cat es an i ndi vi dual ' s pr i vacy i nt er est s.

504 F. 3d at 12. But because a CODI S pr of i l e "si mpl y f unct i ons as

an addi t i onal , al bei t mor e t echnol ogi cal l y advanced, means of

i dent i f i cat i on, " we l at er hel d i n Bor oi an t hat "t he gover nment ' s

r et ent i on and mat chi ng of [ an i ndi vi dual ] ' s pr of i l e agai nst ot her

pr of i l es i n CODI S does not vi ol at e an expect at i on of pr i vacy that

soci et y i s prepar ed t o r ecogni ze as r easonabl e, and t hus does not

const i t ut e a separate search under t he Four t h Amendment . " 616 F. 3d

at 67- 68 ( emphasi s added) . Thi s di smant l es Thomas' s ar gument t hat

t he retent i on and matchi ng of hi s dat a here was a separate search

wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Four t h Amendment .

Because t he DNA Act by i t s t erms appl i es onl y t o DNA

sampl es t aken f r om i ndi vi dual s al r eady convi ct ed of "qual i f yi ng"

cr i mes, i ndi vi dual s subj ect t o t he DNA Act have a "subst ant i al l y

di mi ni shed expect at i on of pr i vacy. " Wei ker t , 504 F. 3d at 11

( di scussi ng t he pr i vacy expect at i ons of i ndi vi dual s on condi t i onal

r el ease f ol l owi ng a qual i f yi ng convi ct i on) . Thomas r el i es on t hi s

concept f r om Wei ker t .

Thomas' s ar gument i gnor es t he di st i ngui shi ng f act s t hat

hi s DNA dat a was not i n CODI S or any ot her dat abase and was

r et ai ned onl y i n an ol d cl osed case f i l e on an i nvest i gat i on ( and

not even on hi m i ndi vi dual l y) . Hi s ar gument al so si dest eps t he

-21-


22/26

f act t hat t he ol d f i l e was not easi l y or wi del y avai l abl e t o

pol i ce, and t hat t her e was no di scl osur e except t o rel evant l aw

enf or cement of f i ci al s. Thomas poi nt s t o Wei ker t as suppor t i ng hi s

ar gument t hat t he ret ent i on of hi s dat a i nvades hi s r easonabl e

expect at i on of pr i vacy. And i t does so, he ar gues, even mor e

st r ongl y f or hi m t han f or t he convi cted pr i soner s. The pol i ce

needed t o f ocus on Thomas f i r st t o f i nd t he DNA, not vi ce ver sa as

i s t he case wi t h a dat abase.

We t hi nk t her e i s a di f f er ence bet ween t he si t uat i on i n

Wei ker t 17 di scussi ng t he CODI S dat abase, whi ch i s wi del y avai l abl e

and used, and t he ret ent i on of an i ndi vi dual suspect ' s DNA dat a i n

an ol d i nvest i gat or y f i l e about an unr el at ed cr i me. We ar e

unwi l l i ng t o make t he l eap Thomas urges as t o whether soci ety woul d

vi ew hi m as havi ng a reasonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy pr event i ng

l at er di scl osur e of t he r et ai ned pr of i l e t o ot her r el evant

i nvest i gator y l aw enf or cement per sonnel . 18 We need not deci de t he

i ssue of whet her r et ent i on of DNA pr of i l e dat a- - i n t he f i l e of an

i nvest i gat i on whi ch does not r esul t i n char ges i n ot her

17 Wei kert i n f act assumes t hat use by l aw enf orcement of CODI SDNA pr of i l es does not vi ol ate t he Four t h Amendment and the merepossi bi l i t y of unaut hor i zed abuse, i n vi ol at i on of t he DNA Act ,"does not si gni f i cant l y i ncrease Wei ker t ' s pr i vacy i nt er est . " 504

F. 3d at 12. Her e, t her e i s no cl ai m t he use was "unaut hor i zed. "

18 We do agr ee wi t h J udge East erbr ook' s obser vat i on i n Gr eenv. Ber ge, t hat "what i s ' r easonabl e' under t he Four t h Amendment f ora per son on condi t i onal r el ease, or a f el on, may be unr easonabl ef or t he gener al popul at i on. " 354 F. 3d 675, 680 ( 7t h Ci r . 2004)( East er br ook, J . , concur r i ng) .

-22-


23/26

ci r cumst ances- - endanger s a per son' s r easonabl e expect at i on of

pr i vacy pr otected by t he Four t h Amendment . That i s not t he

quest i on bef or e us. Even i f we assume t her e i s such an i nt er est ,

t he quest i on i s whet her t o appl y t he excl usi onar y r ul e t o t he

r et ent i on of t hi s dat a. But t her e was no mi sconduct i n r et ent i on

of t he r epor t , and so not hi ng t o det er .

C. Mi scel l aneous Argument s Regardi ng t he Transf er of t he DNAProf i l e Acr oss Law Enf orcement Agenci es

Thomas mount s an addi t i onal set of ar gument s r egar di ng

t he t r ansmi ssi on of hi s DNA pr of i l e i n 2011. Fi r st , he cont ends

t hat i t was i mpr oper f or Desr osi er s t o obt ai n t he mi ssi ng page of

t he DNA pr of i l e si mpl y by cal l i ng Or chi d Cel l mar k, and t hat wi t hout

a separ at e war r ant , t hi s was an i mper mi ssi bl e vi ol at i on of Thomas' s

r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy. Her e, he ci t es t he gover nment ' s

concessi on t hat i ndi vi dual s do not l ose a r easonabl e expect at i on of

pr i vacy i n t hei r l awf ul l y obt ai ned DNA pr of i l e as t o "any"

subsequent use of i t . See Bor oi an, 616 F. 3d at 68; Wei ker t , 504

F. 3d at 12- 13.

We do not deci de t he br oader quest i ons r ai sed by t he

government ' s concessi on. However , on t hese f act s, t he "subsequent

use" of t he DNA pr of i l e- - compl et i ng an i nvest i gat i ve f i l e wher e t he

r et ent i on of t he f i l e i t sel f was not i mpr oper - - was not a separ at e

vi ol at i on of Thomas' s Four t h Amendment r i ght s. 19 We agr ee wi t h t he

19 I n t hi s cont ext , Thomas al so r ei t er at es hi s st at ut or yar gument : he di sput es t he gover nment ' s asser t i on t hat DNA pr of i l es

-23-


24/26

di st r i ct cour t t hat t he "Post al Ser vi ce was ent i t l ed t o t hat page

f r om t he out set , and no separ at e l egal event . . . occur r ed by

vi r t ue of i t s compl et i ng i t s f i l e. "

Second, Thomas cl ai ms t hat because t he DNA sampl e was

i ni t i al l y col l ected "t hr ough a Gr and J ur y Pr ocess, " t he di scl osur es

( f i r st t o Desr osi er s by Or chi d Cel l mar k and l at er t o t he Mai ne

St at e Pol i ce) of t he DNA pr of i l e vi ol at ed t he r ul es gover ni ng gr and

j ury secr ecy.

Desr osi er s di d not vi ol at e Rul e 6( e) of t he Feder al Rul es

of Cr i mi nal Procedur e when he gave t he DNA pr of i l e t o t he Mai ne

St at e Pol i ce f or compar i son pur poses. Fi r st , Thomas f ai l s t o

est abl i sh t hat Rul e 6( e) - - whi ch gover ns gr and j ur y secr ecy- - was

i mpl i cated when t he r eport was f orwarded. Rul e 6( e) i mposes

secrecy requi r ement s r egar di ng any "mat t er occur r i ng bef or e t he

gr and j ur y. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 6( e) ( 2) ( B) . Thomas does not pr ovi de

any suppor t f or t he pr oposi t i on that t hi s evi dence, whi ch was never

pr esent ed t o a gr and j ur y, was subj ect t o t he r est r i ct i ons of Rul e

6( e) . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Phi l l i ps, 843 F. 2d 438, 441

f unct i on si mi l ar l y t o f i nger pr i nt s, and not es t hat oncef i nger pr i nt s are secur ed by l aw enf or cement , " t her e ar e nost at ut or y pr ovi si ons r equi r i ng t hei r expungement . " That i s an

accur at e char act er i zat i on of t he l aw' s t r eat ment of f i nger pr i ntexempl ar s; however , Thomas i s i ncor r ect t o i mpl y t hat t her e i s ast atut e r equi r i ng t he expungement of t he DNA pr of i l e here. The DNAAct di d not appl y to t he event s of t hi s case, and pl ai nl y thatst atut e' s expungement pr ovi si ons do not r each beyond CODI S t oi ndi vi dual pol i ce f i l es whose cont ent s are not gover ned by the Acti n t he f i r st pl ace. See 42 U. S. C. 14132( d) ( 1) .

-24-


25/26

( 11t h Ci r . 1988) ( hol di ng t hat evi dence not pr esent ed t o the gr and

j ury does not i mpl i cat e i t s secr ecy r ul es) .

I n any event , out si de of sever e cases, t he aut hor i zed

r emedy f or a secrecy vi ol at i on i s cont empt , and not suppr essi on of

evi dence. See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 6( e) ( 7) ( "A knowi ng vi ol at i on of

Rul e 6 . . . may be puni shed as a cont empt of cour t . " ) . We have

hel d t hat t hi s r emedy " f ocuses, as i t shoul d, ' on t he cul pabl e

i ndi vi dual r at her t han gr ant i ng a wi ndf al l t o t he unpr ej udi ced

def endant . ' " I n r e Uni t ed St at es, 441 F. 3d 44, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2006)

( quot i ng Bank of Nova Scot i a v. Uni t ed St at es, 487 U. S. 250, 263

( 1988) ) . Even i f we wer e t o f i nd t hat t her e was a vi ol at i on of

Rul e 6 here, Thomas does not of f er any evi dence or ci t e any

aut hor i t y that woul d r equi r e excl usi on, a r emedy wel l beyond t he

one pr escr i bed i n Rul e 6( e) .

D. Cumul at i ve Anal ysi s

Under Her r i ng we al so consi der t he cost s t o soci et y f r om

appl i cat i on of t he excl usi onar y r ul e, and whet her any mar gi nal

det er r ence val ue out wei ghs t he soci al cost s. 555 U. S. at 141;

Uni t ed St at es v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 910 ( 1984) . Havi ng f ound t he

Four t h Amendment vi ol ated i n t he taki ng of t he 2004 sampl e, even

assumi ng t he r et ent i on of t he DNA pr of i l e i n a cl osed case f i l e

r ai ses some pr i vacy concerns, and t hat t here i s some mar gi nal val ue

even i n at t enuat ed det er r ence, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t

-25-


26/26

t hat excl usi on i s not "wor t h t he pr i ce pai d by t he j ust i ce system. "

Her r i ng, 555 U. S. at 144.

The exper i enced di st r i ct cour t j udge poi nted out one such

cost : " i t wi l l be ver y cumber some i f t he use of i t ems i n l aw

enf or cement f i l es can be chal l enged year s l at er , i n a di f f er ent

i nvest i gat i on. How i s a cur r ent i nvest i gat or t o know t he

ci r cumst ances of t he or i gi nal acqui si t i on and t her ef or e whet her

par t i cul ar i t ems of evi dence can be used?" Fur t her , as we

comment ed i n Wei ker t , t he use of DNA pr of i l es has both t he capaci t y

t o sol ve cr i mes ef f i ci ent l y, and t o "exoner at e t hose wr ongf ul l y

suspect ed of cr i mi nal act i vi t y. " 504 F. 3d at 14.

We ar e conf i dent t hat appl i cat i on of t he excl usi onar y

r ul e woul d be out wei ghed by the r esul t i ng cost s t o t he cr i mi nal

j ust i ce syst em. We af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Thomas' s

mot i on t o suppr ess.

I I I .

We af f i r m.

-26-

United States v. Thomas, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Thomas, 1st Cir. (2013)