Opinion ID: 1381545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: claim of violation of fourth amendment rights in taking of hair samples

Text: Defendant next assigns as error the admission into evidence at the sentencing hearing of testimony of the results of an analysis of hair samples taken from his body. F.B.I. laboratory specialist Neil testified that [b]ased upon my experience in the last 15 years, this is one of the few cases in which I was able to work with this many questioned hairs, all of which fell within the range of comparison characteristics exhibited in the samples. He added, The hairs either originated from the person represented by the known sample, purportedly from the defendant, or from some other individual of the white race exhibiting the same range of microscopic characteristics and the latter possibility I consider as remote. The record discloses that, during the interrogation in the sheriff's office, the officers requested, and defendant consented to, the taking of head and pubic hairs from the defendant. We have previously dealt with this issue in State v. Sharpe, 284 N.C. 157, 200 S.E.2d 44 (1973). We held there, and reaffirm here, that an official in-custody investigative technique designed to uncover incriminating evidence from a person's body is such a minor intrusion into or upon the individual's person that it is not an unreasonable seizure. In Grimes v. United States, 405 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1968), it was said that the obtaining of hair samples after lawful arrest, where the means employed are reasonable, is not a violation of [one's] constitutional right. Id. at 479. See also, United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); United States v. D'Amico, 408 F.2d 331 (2d Cir. 1969). We also note our prior holding that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, G.S. 15A, Art. 14, relating to nontestimonial identification orders were not aimed at defendants in the custody of police officers. State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 231 S.E.2d 833 (1977). There, as here, defendant was clearly in custody at the time of the police acts about which defendant complains. Indeed, defendant concedes, had there been no illegality in detaining [him] without bringing him before a magistrate, no question of consent could be legitimately raised. Brief for Defendant at 30. We have held in an earlier portion of this decision that there was no illegal arrest. Moreover, the record discloses the defendant clearly consented to the taking of the hair sample after the officers explained that he was not required to do so. Hence, this assignment of error is overruled.