Title: New Jersey v. Gathers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: July 24, 2018

New Jersey v. Gathers Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary This interlocutory appeal presented two issues: (1) whether the State may rely solely on a hearsay certification to support a motion for an order to compel a buccal swab; and (2) whether the affidavit in this case provided sufficient probable cause to support the search. Two Jersey City police officers answered “a call of shots fired.” While investigating, one of the officers discovered a .357 handgun on the ground. That same night, a detective responded to investigate reports that a male had been shot near the area where shots were allegedly fired. At the hospital, the detective encountered defendant who had sustained a bullet wound on his left leg. While officers examined defendant’s pants, defendant said, “so I shot myself, that ain’t no charge.” Analysis of the gun, bullets and shell casings were used as grounds for a grand jury indictment of defendant for weapon possession offenses. Five months after defendant’s indictment, the State moved for an order compelling defendant to submit to a buccal swab. The Appellate Division granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal and reversed the trial court’s order, reasoning that even if the assistant prosecutor’s hearsay certification could establish probable cause, the court’s order authorized an “unreasonable search, chiefly because of the timing of the request,” and because the New Jersey DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994 did not justify the intrusion. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the State’s motion for leave to appeal. Although an affidavit of a police officer familiar with the investigation is preferable, the Court determined a hearsay certification from an assistant prosecutor could support probable cause to compel a defendant to submit to a buccal swab if it set forth the basis for the prosecutor’s knowledge. Furthermore, an affidavit or certification supporting probable cause to compel a buccal swab must establish a fair probability that defendant’s DNA will be found on the evidence. Here, the State failed to show probable cause. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . SYLLABUS(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.) State v. Tariq S. Gathers (A-80-16) (079274)Argued April 23, 2018 -- Decided July 24, 2018SOLOMON, J., writing for the Court. This interlocutory appeal raises two issues: (1) whether the State may rely solely on a hearsay certification to support a motion for an order to compel a buccal swab; and (2) whether the affidavit in this case provided sufficient probable cause to support the search. Two Jersey City police officers answered “a call of shots fired.” While canvassing the area on foot, one of the officers discovered a Smith and Wesson .357 handgun on the ground. That same night, a detective responded to investigate reports that a male had been shot near the area where shots were allegedly fired. At the hospital, the detective encountered defendant who had sustained a bullet wound on his left leg. While officers examined defendant’s pants, defendant said, “so I shot myself, that ain’t no charge.” Meanwhile, the Jersey City Bureau of Criminal Investigations/Crime Scene Unit processed the scene where the gun was found. An examination of the gun revealed “5 bullets and 1 shell case (spent).” The gun, bullets, and shell casing were dusted for latent fingerprints, and swabbed for DNA evidence. The police report stated that “the swabs will be prepared for submission to the NJ State Police [Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)] lab[] for DNA profile, entry [into] CODIS and comparison to the data base.” Ultimately, no fingerprints were retrieved from the gun or bullets. Three months later, a Hudson County grand jury indicted defendant for weapon possession offenses. Five months after defendant’s indictment, the State moved for an order compelling defendant to submit to a buccal swab. In support of the motion, the State submitted an assistant prosecutor’s certification that claimed, in part, that: “References are needed [sic] the defendant in order to make proper comparisons to the items of evidence which are currently being submitted to the New Jersey State Police.” The trial court granted the State’s motion, finding that taking a buccal swab is “at the very low level of being intrusive to one’s body.” The Appellate Division granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal and reversed the trial court’s order. 449 N.J. Super. 265, 267 (App. Div. 2017). The panel reasoned that, even if the assistant prosecutor’s hearsay certification could establish probable cause, the court’s order authorized an “unreasonable search, chiefly because of the timing of the request,” id. at 269-70, and because the New Jersey DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994 does not justify the intrusion, id. at 272. The Court granted the State’s motion for leave to appeal. 230 N.J. 502 (2017). 1 Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because it came to light that the gun was tested for DNA in 2016 and no DNA was found. The Court now denies the motion, choosing to resolve this important constitutional question.HELD: Although an affidavit of a police officer familiar with the investigation is preferable, a hearsay certification from an assistant prosecutor may support probable cause to compel a defendant to submit to a buccal swab if it sets forth the basis for the prosecutor’s knowledge. Second, an affidavit or certification supporting probable cause to compel a buccal swab must establish a fair probability that defendant’s DNA will be found on the evidence. Here, the State failed to show probable cause.1. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution protect citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. In conducting a reasonableness analysis, a court must balance the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Except in certain well-defined circumstances, a search or seizure is not reasonable unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause. New Jersey has adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether warrants are based on probable cause. (pp. 11-13)2. It is not disputed that a blood test or cheek swab for the purposes of obtaining a DNA sample is a search. Although this case involves the “minimal intrusion” of a buccal swab, the circumstances under which the swab was sought are different from those the Supreme Court considered in Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013). Unlike the Maryland Legislature, the New Jersey Legislature has not provided authority to take a defendant’s buccal swab at any time prior to conviction except in specific circumstances. For that reason, it is necessary to consider the nature and quality of the evidence upon which the order was obtained. Here, the State relied upon an assistant prosecutor’s hearsay certification to support its motion to compel defendant to submit to a buccal swab. (pp. 13-15)3. Although a buccal swab at the time of arrest or booking “does not increase the indignity already attendant to normal incidents of arrest,” King, 569 U.S. at 464, the same cannot be presumed nearly eight months after arrest, and five months after indictment. (pp. 15-16)4. As a matter of legal principle, the hearsay nature of the assistant prosecutor’s certification is not problematic in and of itself. Hearsay has long been admissible in affidavits to support search warrants. An affidavit from a police officer familiar with the investigation would be preferable to an assistant prosecutor’s hearsay certification as support for an application for a buccal swab. Nevertheless, although a hearsay affidavit can support a probable cause determination, it may not, on its own, be sufficient to show probable cause. To establish probable cause, the certification or affidavit must contain facts which give the statement an appearance of trustworthiness. Thus, in circumstances like these, the hearsay certification or affidavit must at least establish the affiant’s basis of knowledge. Here, the certification failed to establish the basis for the assistant prosecutor’s knowledge and, thus, to provide sufficient indicia of reliability to support a motion to compel the buccal swab on its own. (pp. 16-17) 2 5. Even if a supporting certification or affidavit establishes the basis of knowledge, it still must satisfy the substantive requirements of probable cause. Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant requires a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. In support of the motion, the assistant prosecutor did not provide a report, certification, or statement by a qualified investigator that there was a “fair probability” that the gun would bear defendant’s DNA. Therefore, the State did not establish probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found. (pp. 17-18)6. Defendant also argues that the State already had defendant’s DNA in CODIS and did not need a buccal swab for comparison. However, DNA samples related to possessory offenses are generally not eligible for upload in CODIS, and defendant’s charges are all possessory crimes. In any event, the search was improper because of the State’s failure to show probable cause. (pp. 18-19)7. In sum, the order to compel a buccal swab in this case needed to be predicated upon probable cause. To show probable cause in support of its motion for an order to compel, the State could rely on a hearsay affidavit that (1) set forth the basis of knowledge for the certification or affidavit and (2) established that there was a “fair probability” that defendant’s DNA was on the gun. Without such information, and considering the totality of the circumstances, the Appellate Division properly denied the State’s application. (p. 19) AFFIRMED.CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE SOLOMON’s opinion. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 80 September Term 2016 079274STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.TARIQ S. GATHERS, Defendant-Respondent. Argued April 23, 2018 – Decided July 24, 2018 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 449 N.J. Super. 265 (App. Div. 2017). Stephanie Davis Elson, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney; Stephanie Davis Elson, on the briefs). Chanel J. Hudson, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Chanel J. Hudson, of counsel and on the briefs, and Caitlin Flood, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs). Lila B. Leonard, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Lila B. Leonard, of counsel and on the brief). Joseph Paravecchia, Assistant Mercer County Prosecutor, argued the cause for amicus curiae County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (Richard T. Burke, President, attorney; Joseph Paravecchia and Laura Sunyak, Assistant Mercer County Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs). 1 Tess Borden (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Rebecca Livengood, Alexander Shalom, Edward L. Barocas, and Jeanne M. LoCicero, on the brief). JUSTICE SOLOMON delivered the opinion of the Court. This interlocutory appeal raises two issues: (1) whetherthe State may rely solely on a hearsay certification to supporta motion for an order to compel a buccal swab; and (2) whetherthe affidavit in this case provided sufficient probable cause tosupport the search. Defendant was arrested after shooting himself in the legwith a gun. Eight months after defendant’s arrest and fivemonths after his indictment on weapons charges, the State movedfor an order compelling defendant to submit to a buccal swab sothat his DNA profile could be obtained. In support of themotion, the State submitted a certification from an assistantprosecutor who claimed that the buccal swab was needed “in orderto make proper comparisons to the items of evidence which arecurrently being submitted to the New Jersey State Police.” Thetrial court granted the State’s motion. The Appellate Divisionreversed, finding, in part, that the assistant prosecutor’scertification could not establish probable cause sufficient to 2 justify the search because it consisted of “nothing but hearsay”and it failed to demonstrate that the item of evidence -- a gun-- “actually contains DNA.” State v. Gathers, 449 N.J. Super. 265, 269, 274 (App. Div. 2017). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. First,although an affidavit of a police officer familiar with theinvestigation is preferable, a hearsay certification from anassistant prosecutor may support probable cause to compel adefendant to submit to a buccal swab if it sets forth the basisfor the prosecutor’s knowledge. Second, we hold that anaffidavit or certification supporting probable cause to compel abuccal swab must establish a fair probability that defendant’sDNA will be found on the evidence. I. The record before the Appellate Division, including policereports and the certification in support of the motion to compela buccal swab from defendant, reveals that two Jersey Citypolice officers answered “a call of shots fired.” Whilecanvassing the area on foot, one of the officers discovered aSmith and Wesson .357 handgun on the ground behind the rear-passenger tire of a vehicle. That same night, a Jersey City detective responded to JerseyCity Medical Center to investigate reports that a male had beenshot near the area where shots were allegedly fired. At the 3 hospital, the detective encountered defendant who had sustaineda bullet wound on the top part of the left knee and an exitwound on the lower part of his left leg. While officersexamined defendant’s pants, defendant said, “so I shot myself,that ain’t no charge.” In response to questioning about theweapon, defendant described it as “a . . . revolver and it wentoff,” and added that he had just “dropped it.” Meanwhile, the Jersey City Bureau of CriminalInvestigations/Crime Scene Unit (BCI Unit) processed the scenewhere the gun was found. An examination of the gun revealed “5bullets and 1 shell case (spent).” The gun, bullets, and shellcasing were dusted for latent fingerprints, and “the grip, backstrap, trigger, and five bullets from the cylinder” were swabbedfor DNA evidence. The police report stated that “the swabs willbe prepared for submission to the NJ State Police [Combined DNAIndex System (CODIS)]1 Lab[] for DNA profile, entry [into] CODISand comparison to the data base.”1 “'CODIS’ means the [Federal Bureau of Investigation]’s national DNA identification index system that allows the storage and exchange of DNA records submitted by State and local forensic laboratories.” N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.19; see also State v. Gathers, 449 N.J. Super. 265, 268 n.1 (App. Div. 2017) (“CODIS refers to the Combined DNA Index System maintained in all fifty states and a number of federal agencies to collect DNA profiles to be used for, among other things, human identity testing.”). 4 Ultimately, no fingerprints were retrieved from the gun orbullets and the record before the motion judge and AppellateDivision did not indicate when or if the swabs were submitted tothe State Lab. Defendant’s vehicle, which he drove to thehospital, was also photographed and police found “blood on thepassenger side front floor board.” Three months later, a Hudson County grand jury indicteddefendant for second-degree possession of a weapon for anunlawful purpose, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4; second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, in violation of N.J.S.A.2C:39-5(b); and fourth-degree certain persons not to haveweapons, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(a). Five months after defendant’s indictment, the State movedfor an order compelling defendant to submit to a buccal swab.2In support of the motion, the State submitted an assistantprosecutor’s certification that claimed, in part, that: 10. A contributor to the DNA profile can only be obtained by means of a [b]uccal swab.2 “Buccal cell collection involves wiping a small piece of filter paper or a cotton swab similar to a Q-tip against the inside cheek of an individual’s mouth to collect some skin cells.” Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 , 444 (2013) (quoting John M. Butler, Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing 5 (2010)). The United States Supreme Court has noted that the buccal swab “procedure is quick and painless. The swab touches inside an arrestee’s mouth, but it requires no 'surgical intrusio[n] beneath the skin,’ and it poses no 'threa[t] to the health or safety’ of arrestees.” Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 , 760, 763 (1985)). 5 References are needed [sic] the defendant in order to make proper comparisons to the items of evidence which are currently being submitted to the New Jersey State Police. 11. No previous application has been made to any court to compel buccal swabs from the defendant. Defense counsel argued that the State had not “provided anysort of lab report to the defense wherein there is an indicationthat [defendant’s] . . . DNA is even in fact found on this gunat all” or any “information from the lab reports saying thatthey need his buccal swab for any sort of confirmatory testingor anything like that.” Defense counsel also noted thatdefendant was convicted of a separate drug offense in July 2015and was ordered to provide a DNA sample pursuant to the NewJersey DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994 (the DNA Act),N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.10 to -20.28. Thus, according to the defense,the State could use defendant’s DNA profile already in CODIS “inthe investigation and prosecution of other crimes,” obviatingthe need for a buccal swab. The trial court granted the State’s motion, finding thattaking a buccal swab is “at the very low level of beingintrusive to one’s body.” The court explained that, althoughthe State needed a reason for its request, it was not requiredto show that DNA from the gun matched DNA from CODIS. The trialcourt then denied defendant’s motion for a stay of the order, 6 and defendant filed an emergent motion for leave to appeal tothe Appellate Division. The Appellate Division granted defendant’s motion for leaveto appeal and reversed the trial court’s order. Gathers, 449 N.J. Super. at 267. The panel reasoned that, even if theassistant prosecutor’s hearsay certification could establishprobable cause, the court’s order authorized an “unreasonablesearch, chiefly because of the timing of the request,” id. at269-70, and because the DNA Act does not justify the intrusion,id. at 272. The panel, quoting State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140, 162(2007), recognized that the nature of the buccal swab as a “veryminor physical intrusion” remains unchanged regardless of thetiming of the State’s request but concluded that “[t]heindignity of being forced to provide a buccal swab whiledefendant -- presumed innocent -- resides in the county jailawaiting trial3 is a legitimate concern that should be weighedagainst the alleged governmental interest when court approvalfor such a search is sought.” Gathers, 449 N.J. Super. at 271-3 The Appellate Division states: “On April 22, 2016, eight months after the alleged offense and five months after the indictment -- as defendant resided in the county jail awaiting trial -- the State moved for an order authorizing the taking of a buccal swab of defendant’s mouth.” Gathers, 449 N.J. Super. at 268. However, the record does not definitively show that defendant was incarcerated on the present charges at the time the State made the motion for a buccal swab. 7 72. The panel also found that the State did not demonstrate aneed for the DNA evidence because the State “has alreadyavailable to it information possessed by CODIS” and the Statedid not show that the gun actually contained DNA. Id. at 273-74. We granted the State’s motion for leave to appeal. 230 N.J. 502 (2017). Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as mootbecause it came to light that the gun was tested for DNA in 2016and no DNA was found. We reserved judgment on the motion todismiss. We now deny the motion because we choose to resolvethis important constitutional question. See Joye v. HunterdonCent. Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 176 N.J. 568, 583 (2003)(electing “to resolve [the] constitutional challenge [posed inthat case] given its public significance and the likelihood'that controversies similar to this one will present themselvesin the future’” (quoting Clymer v. Summit Bancorp., 171 N.J. 57,66 (2002))); Zirger v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327, 330(1996) (“[W]e will decide [moot] appeals where the underlyingissue is one of substantial importance, likely to reoccur butcapable of evading review.”). We also granted the motions ofthe New Jersey Office of the Attorney General (AG), the CountyProsecutor’s Association of New Jersey (CPANJ), and the AmericanCivil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) to participate asamici curiae. 8 II. The pertinent arguments of the parties are as follows. TheAG’s and CPANJ’s arguments largely mirror the State’scontentions, and the arguments of the ACLU largely replicatedefendant’s contentions. A. The State argues that the trial court and AppellateDivision erred in their holdings and advances two contentions tosupport its proposition that the certification of the assistantprosecutor was adequate to demonstrate the governmental need fora buccal swab from defendant. First, the State alleges that theAppellate Division’s holding is based on a flawed understandingof the DNA Act and CODIS. The State explains that the NationalDNA Index System (NDIS) Operational Procedures Manual (NDISManual) “specifically delineates what DNA records are noteligible for upload in the system.” Such records include “anitem taken directly from a suspect,” “DNA samples obtained froma suspect,” and “an item for which the suspect’s profile couldreasonably be expected to be found that is at the crime scene.”In this case, for example, in order to be CODIS-eligible, “thegun must originate from or be associated with a crime and thesource of the resultant DNA must be attributable to a putativeperpetrator.” Thus, according to the State, “a gun swab from a 9 case involving a simple possessory offense requires a DNAreference from the suspect for comparison.” Moreover, the State notes that, due to chain-of custody-problems, many DNA collection kit profiles are not consideredevidence. According to the State, even after a CODIS hit, theState usually applies for a confirmatory buccal swab toestablish the chain of custody. Second, the State argues that the certification in supportof the motion for a buccal swab is permissible under NewJersey’s search and seizure jurisprudence. The State avers thatboth state and federal law permit hearsay to establish theprobable cause underlying a search. For support, the Staterelies on United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 , 109 (1965);State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 120 (1987); and State v.Perry, 59 N.J. 383, 394 (1971). Citing Novembrino, 105 N.J. at 122, the State emphasizes that New Jersey utilizes a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis to evaluate the validity of searchwarrants. Thus, the State alleges that the certificationsupplied by the assistant prosecutor, although not based on herpersonal knowledge of this case, was sufficient because theprosecutor had the police reports and police observation reportsand provided the trial court with “an ample basis on which toreview the State’s request and determine if probable causeexisted.” 10 B. Defendant argues that because the State can obtain his DNAfrom other sources, namely CODIS, there is no need for a buccalswab in this case. For support, defendant relies on the DNAAct’s provision that “[n]o sample shall be drawn or collectedpursuant to [the DNA Act] if the division has previouslyreceived a blood or biological sample from the convicted person. . . which was adequate for successful analysis andidentification.” (quoting N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.22(d)). Moreover,defendant points to Section 20.37(a) of the DNA Act, whichmandates that the State Police retain any DNA profileinformation obtained from biological samples. Most relevant to this appeal, defendant argues that thebuccal swab “request is also problematic because the Statefailed to prove DNA was located on the gun and/or that[defendant’s] DNA was indeed found.” According to defendant,because the State has not shown that it submitted the DNA swabsfrom the gun to the State Lab for analysis, it cannot establishthat defendant’s buccal swab is necessary for comparison. III. A. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution andArticle I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution similarlyprotect citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. 11 “[T]he Fourth Amendment’s proper function is to constrain . . .against intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances,or which are made in an improper manner.” Schmerber v.California, 384 U.S. 757 , 768 (1966). Thus, the FourthAmendment’s “protection is not against all searches andseizures, but only those that are unreasonable.” O’Hagen, 189 N.J. at 149; see also Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 , 447 (2013)(noting that “the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of agovernmental search is 'reasonableness’” (quoting Vernonia Sch.Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 , 652 (1995))). “Whether a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment'depends on . . . all of the circumstances surrounding thesearch or seizure and the nature of the search or seizureitself.’” O’Hagen, 189 N.J. at 149 (quoting Skinner v. Ry.Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 , 619 (1989)). In conducting areasonableness analysis, a court must balance the “intrusion onthe individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against [the]promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619 (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 , 654(1979)). “Generally, 'we strike this balance in favor of theprocedures described by the Warrant Clause of the FourthAmendment,’” O’Hagen, 189 N.J. at 149 (quoting Skinner, 489 U.S.at 619), which provides that “no Warrants shall issue exceptupon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,” U.S. 12 Const. amend. IV; accord N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7. “Except incertain well-defined circumstances, a search or seizure . . . isnot reasonable unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicialwarrant issued upon probable cause.” Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619. “Although probable cause 'eludes precise definition,’ it isgenerally understood to mean 'less than legal evidence necessaryto convict though more than mere naked suspicion.’” State v.Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 553 (2005) (first quoting Wildoner v.Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375, 389 (2000); then quoting Statev. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 210-11 (2001)). “This Court hascharacterized probable cause 'as a common-sense, practicalstandard for determining the validity of a search warrant.’”Ibid. (quoting Novembrino, 105 N.J. at 120). New Jersey hasadopted a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determinewhether warrants are based on probable cause. Id. at 554.Under that test, “courts must consider all relevantcircumstances to assess the validity of a warrant.” Ibid. B. “It is not disputed that a blood test or cheek swab forthe purposes of obtaining a DNA sample is a 'search.’” O’Hagen,189 N.J. at 149 (citing Skinner, 489 U.S. at 616-17). Althoughthis case involves the “minimal intrusion” of a buccal swab, thecircumstances under which the swab was sought are different fromthose the Supreme Court considered in King. Unlike the Maryland 13 Legislature, our State Legislature has not provided authority totake a defendant’s buccal swab at any time prior to convictionexcept in specific circumstances. See N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.20.Furthermore, our statute allows for the taking of a buccal swabonly at the time of booking or indictment for certain enumeratedoffenses. Ibid. This case does not present one of thoseoffenses. For that reason, we must consider the nature and quality ofthe evidence upon which the order was obtained. Here, the Staterelied upon an assistant prosecutor’s hearsay certification tosupport its motion to compel defendant to submit to a buccalswab. Hearsay may be sufficient to establish probable cause,provided it is trustworthy. See N.J.R.E. 101(a)(2)(D)(providing that rules of evidence may be relaxed to admit“relevant and trustworthy evidence in the interests of justice”in “proceedings to establish probable cause”); State v.DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360, 385 (1969) (“[H]earsay is an adequatebasis for finding probable cause and the issuance of a warrant,so long as there are facts which give the statement anappearance of trustworthiness.”); see also Novembrino, 105 N.J.at 123 (holding that informant’s tip may give rise to probablecause but court must consider “veracity and basis of knowledge”of informant as part of “totality” analysis). In other words, 14 to support probable cause, there must be “something coupled withthe hearsay to give it reasonable credit, something which givesit the appearance of trustworthiness.” State v. Kasabucki, 52 N.J. 110, 117 (1968); see also Novembrino, 105 N.J. at 120-21(“[W]e have permitted reliance on hearsay for the purpose ofestablishing probable cause, but have insisted that theofficer’s affidavit provide the warrant-issuing judge with asubstantial basis for crediting the hearsay.”). IV. A. In applying those principles to the facts of this case, westress that the State did not seek a buccal swab from defendantnear the time of his arrest. See King, 569 U.S. at 461. The delay in administering the buccal swab affects theanalysis relating to probable cause: although a buccal swab atthe time of arrest or booking “does not increase the indignityalready attendant to normal incidents of arrest,” id. at 464, wecannot presume the same for a swab nearly eight months afterarrest, and five months after indictment. For that reason, thegovernment’s interest in obtaining a buccal swab in furtheranceof the investigation or prosecution of defendant requires thatprobable cause be demonstrated. We therefore consider whetherthe affidavit, which was the sole support for the order to 15 compel the swab in this case, sufficed to establish probablecause. As a matter of legal principle, the hearsay nature of theassistant prosecutor’s certification is not problematic in andof itself. Hearsay has long been admissible in affidavits tosupport search warrants, see DiRienzo, 53 N.J. at 385, and wesee no distinction to be made with respect to an order to compela biological sample such as the swab at issue here. We do note that an affidavit from a police officer familiarwith the investigation would be preferable to an assistantprosecutor’s hearsay certification as support for an applicationfor a buccal swab. However, requiring affidavits from thosewith first-hand knowledge of the event to obtain judicialauthorization for a search would be unduly burdensome and woulddeviate from our jurisprudence. Nevertheless, although a hearsay affidavit can support aprobable cause determination, it may not, on its own, besufficient to show probable cause. To establish probable cause,the certification or affidavit must contain “facts which givethe statement an appearance of trustworthiness.” DiRienzo, 53 N.J. at 385. Thus, in circumstances like these, the hearsaycertification or affidavit must at least establish the affiant’sbasis of knowledge. The State argues here that the assistantprosecutor relied upon police reports and police observation 16 reports. However, those reports and their contents are notreferred to in the assistant prosecutor’s certification. Thecertification therefore failed to establish the basis for theassistant prosecutor’s knowledge and, thus, to providesufficient indicia of reliability to support a motion to compelthe buccal swab on its own. Moreover, even if a supportingcertification or affidavit establishes the basis of knowledge,it still must satisfy the substantive requirements of probablecause. B. Finally, as we have noted, we consider the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether the State hasestablished probable cause. Keyes, 184 N.J. at 553-54.“Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant requires 'afair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will befound in a particular place.’” State v. Chippero, 201 N.J. 14,28 (2009) (quoting United States v. Jones, 994 F.2d 1051, 1056(1993)). In this case, that means we must assess whether the Stateestablished that taking defendant’s buccal swab likely wouldlead to “evidence” that defendant possessed the gun. Theassistant prosecutor’s certification asserts that defendant’swound was inflicted near where the gun was found -- a fact thatmight reasonably lead to the conclusion that defendant’s wound 17 came from the gun recovered. However, such a fact does notestablish that a buccal swab from defendant likely will produceevidence of a crime. Indeed, a buccal swab from defendant couldproduce evidence of a crime only if it could be compared to DNAfrom the gun. In support of the motion, the assistant prosecutor did notprovide a report, certification, or statement by a qualifiedinvestigator that there was a “fair probability” that the gunwould bear defendant’s DNA. Therefore, the State did notestablish probable cause that evidence of a crime would befound. Defendant also argues that the State already haddefendant’s DNA in CODIS and did not need a buccal swab forcomparison. However, the NDIS Manual § 3.1.1.2 sets forthlimitations and practices in the use of CODIS and provides thatDNA samples related to possessory offenses are generally noteligible for upload in CODIS. Furthermore, according to theState Office of Forensic Sciences’ Crime Gun DNA Swabs & DNAAnalysis Submission Guidelines, a DNA swab will not be takenfrom a gun which is not CODIS eligible. State of New JerseyOffice of Forensic Sciences, Crime Gun DNA Swabs & DNA AnalysisSubmission Guidelines (2016), http://www.njsp.org/division/investigations/pdf/ofs/gun_swab_policy.pdf. 18 Defendant’s charges are all possessory crimes -- second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, and fourth-degreecertain persons not to have weapons. Accordingly, we accept theState’s argument that a DNA sample from the gun is not eligiblefor upload in the CODIS system. In any event, the search wasimproper because of the State’s failure to show probable cause. V. In sum, the order to compel a buccal swab in this caseneeded to be predicated upon probable cause. To show probablecause in support of its motion for an order to compel, the Statecould rely on a hearsay affidavit that (1) set forth the basisof knowledge for the certification or affidavit and (2)established that there was a “fair probability” that defendant’sDNA was on the gun. Without such information, and consideringthe totality of the circumstances, we conclude that theAppellate Division properly denied the State’s application foran order compelling defendant’s buccal swab. As a result, weaffirm the Appellate Division’s judgment. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE SOLOMON’s opinion. 19