Opinion ID: 1059619
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Motions to Suppress Fruits of Search Warrant

Text: Johnson argues that the 32-day interval between the time Hamilton first matched DNA from the crime scene with Johnson's DNA profile in the DNA data bank, and the time the search warrant was executed, constituted an unreasonable delay. He contends that the evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, namely, the blood sample, hair samples, and his statement to the police, should have been suppressed based on this unreasonable delay. We disagree. There is no fixed standard or formula establishing a maximum allowable interval between the date of events recited in an affidavit and the date of a search warrant. United States v. McCall, 740 F.2d 1331, 1336 (4th Cir.1984); Huff v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 710, 715, 194 S.E.2d 690, 695 (1973); Perez v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 137, 142-43, 486 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1997). Instead, a warrant will be tested for staleness by considering whether the facts alleged in the warrant provided probable cause to believe, at the time the search actually was conducted, that the search conducted pursuant to the warrant would lead to the discovery of evidence of criminal activity. McCall, 740 F.2d at 1336; Perez, 25 Va.App. at 142, 486 S.E.2d at 581; see United States v. Akram, 165 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir.1999); Huff, 213 Va. at 715-16, 194 S.E.2d at 695. Here, Johnson's contention of staleness fails because the DNA from the crime scene evidence and his DNA profile from the DNA data bank, which were matched by Hamilton and formed the basis for issuance of the warrant, were not subject to change over the 32-day period at issue. The blood and hair samples taken from Johnson pursuant to the search warrant also were not subject to change over this time period. See State v. Baker, 956 S.W.2d 8, 13 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997)(holding that samples of person's blood, saliva, and hair cannot become stale.) Thus, we hold that the search warrant was valid and the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence at issue. Since the search warrant was valid, we also conclude that there is no merit in Johnson's allegation that the statement he made to the police should have been suppressed as a fruit of the search conducted pursuant to that warrant.