People of the State of Michigan v. Serges

David Serges was labeled a person of interest in a homicide investigation after being seen in the victim’s neighborhood, where he sometimes did odd jobs for residents. He was soon arrested, but a judge denied the homicide arrest warrant for lack of evidence. Police nonetheless kept him in custody on an unrelated misdemeanor charge. Still seeking to investigate Mr. Serges for the homicide, police DNA tested many items from the crime scene. None matched Mr. Serges’s DNA. They eventually tested the clothes that they had seized when he was arrested and found a nearly invisible spot of blood. This spot contained a mixture of DNA, some of which matched the victim’s. The prosecution described this DNA match as “the central piece of evidence” in the case, and Mr. Serges was convicted of the murder. 

Both the state trial court and Court of Appeals held that Mr. Serges had no constitutionally protected privacy interest in the clothes that were taken from him once he was arrested. The Michigan Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing on whether testing Mr. Serges’s pants for DNA without a warrant violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment or the analogous search-and-seizure provision in the Michigan Constitution, Article I, section 11.

Our amicus brief argues that (1) Fourth Amendment principles require that law enforcement obtain a warrant to test DNA, and (2) the Michigan Constitution independently requires a warrant to authorize DNA tests.

On the federal question, our brief explains that a person’s DNA reveals extensive, highly sensitive information about them—including their ancestry, family relationships, propensities for medical conditions, and more. Courts have accordingly recognized that extracting and analyzing DNA is a Fourth Amendment search distinct from collecting the biological sample itself. Because DNA testing is a search, conducting that testing without a warrant is presumptively invalid. Our brief further explains that the search-incident-to-arrest exception should not apply. This exception allows officers to search someone and their surroundings when they are arrested, without a warrant, in order to protect officer safety and preserve evidence. But neither justification applies to DNA testing, particularly given the weighty privacy interests at stake.

On the state question, our brief argues that Michigan’s Search-and-Seizure Clause independently requires warrants for DNA testing. Article I, section 11’s text and history support interpreting it to provide more protection than the Fourth Amendment provides. And a recent amendment to the clause, which clarifies its application to electronic data and was overwhelmingly approved by Michigan voters, reflects that its protections remain robust as technological advances increase the government’s capacity to intrude into our privacy. Our brief urges the court to consider the implications of this case: permitting warrantless DNA testing incentivizes pretextual arrests to obtain this genetic material.