Opinion ID: 1149417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: admissibility of blood and hair samples

Text: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), holds that the involuntary taking blood from a person under arrest for driving while intoxicated does not implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. Also, Wesley v. State, 521 So.2d 1283, 1286 (Miss. 1988); Williams v. State, 434 So.2d 1340, 1345 (Miss. 1983). As to the Fourth Amendment, the Court held: The overriding function of the Fourth Amendment is to protect personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State. 384 U.S. at 767, 86 S.Ct. at 1834, 16 L.Ed.2d at 917. And, compulsory administration of a blood test plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, protecting persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures ... 384 U.S. at 767, 86 S.Ct. at 1834, 16 L.Ed.2d at 918. As to a compelled intrusion into the body for blood, the Court analyzed: [T]he Fourth Amendment's proper function is to constrain, not against all intrusions as such, but against intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances, or which are made in an improper manner. In other words, the questions we must decide in this case are whether the police were justified in requiring petitioner to submit to the blood test, and whether the means and procedures employed in taking his blood respected relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness. 384 U.S. at 768, 86 S.Ct. at 1834, 16 L.Ed.2d at 918. Continuing, the Court held that even though a blood sample was relevant to the reason for the defendant's arrest, this in and of itself did not necessarily mean the arresting officer himself could require an involuntary removal of blood, rather than obtaining a search warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate. Yet in upholding the search the Court noted that because the percentage of alcohol in the blood diminished shortly after drinking stopped, and the risk entailed because of the time required in obtaining a search warrant for this purpose, the officer ... might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened `the destruction of the evidence'. 384 U.S. at 770, 86 S.Ct. at 1835, 16 L.Ed.2d at 919-920. Finally the Court noted that the blood was removed in a reasonable manner, and that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The blood had been removed by a physician at a hospital. Likewise, in this case no complaint can be made as to the manner in which the blood, saliva and hair were removed, and indeed Bevill makes no such complaint. The saliva and hair samples were taken by a registered nurse. Bevill's complaint is directly solely to the lack of probable cause upon which the search warrant was issued. As to the removal of Bevill's blood, about all such evidence proved was that he was not excluded. Blood samples from the items of clothing were all type O; Amy's blood was type O, and Bevill's blood was type O. Yet type O is the most common blood type in the human race. It would be difficult to find reversible error in the admission of this evidence, even if the removal of the blood had violated Bevill's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Art. 3, § 23 of the Mississippi Constitution. The hair samples did constitute probative physical evidence, however, and if either Bevill's state or federal constitutional right against unreasonable searches was violated in the removal of hair samples from his person, this would require reversal. Courts have had difficulty in concluding that involuntary removal of hair samples in and of itself implicates the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Weir, 657 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir.1981), involved the involuntary removal of the arrested petitioner's head, beard and mustache hair. The court of appeals observed: Unquestionably, the Government had good reason to examine Weir's hair. The FBI had previously recovered clothing which, according to the informant, Weir wore in the robbery; strands of hair found on a ski mask were to be compared with Webb's hair.       Because the intrusion upon Weir's person was so minor, even if it could be said that he did not consent to the search and seizure, fourth amendment rights were not implicated. 657 F.2d at 1007. Also, U.S. v. D'Amico, 408 F.2d 331, 332-333 (2nd Cir.1969); In re: Grand Jury Proceedings (Mills), 686 F.2d 135 (3rd Cir.Del. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1020, 103 S.Ct. 386, 74 L.Ed.2d 517 (1982); National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989); State v. White, 621 S.W.2d 287 (Mo. 1981); State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 731 P.2d 842 (1987), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1024, 107 S.Ct. 3272, 97 L.Ed.2d 770 (1987); U.S. v. De Parias, 805 F.2d 1447, 1456 (11th Cir.1986). Cf. Bouse v. Bussey, 573 F.2d 548 (9th Cir.1977). Giving Bevill the benefit of the argument, however, we nevertheless conclude there was no constitutional violation in obtaining hair or blood samples from him. As above noted, he was under lawful arrest on August 5, and the officers in this case as in Weir, had good reason to examine his hair. Moreover, the detailed underlying facts supporting the affidavits executed by Rickels for both search warrants clearly furnished the circuit judge with probable cause for issuing them. The underlying facts for the affidavits for search warrants executed on August 5 and August 18, 1986, are virtually identical, and the first is set forth in full as an appendix. An affidavit for a search warrant is a means of presenting to the issuing officer a basis upon which he may determine whether in fact probable cause exists. See, Powell v. State, 355 So.2d 1378 (Miss. 1978). In discussing probable cause for search warrants, it was held in Hall v. State, 455 So.2d 1303 (Miss. 1984), that [p]robable cause [for the issuance of a search warrant] exists when facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge, or of which he has reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient within themselves to justify a man of average caution in the belief that a crime has been committed and that a particular person committed it. 455 So.2d at 1304. See also, Holland v. State, 263 So.2d 566 (Miss. 1972) Probable cause, however, means less than evidence which would justify condemnation. See, Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087 (Miss. 1985); Powe v. State, 235 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1970). The United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), set a totality of the circumstances approach and stated, in determining whether probable cause existed for a particular search or issuance of a search warrant, the judge must scrupulously examine facts, make careful evaluation, and in his best judgment gleaned from life's experiences, determine whether he has a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. See also, Rooks v. State, 529 So.2d 546 (Miss. 1988); Breckenridge v. State, 472 So.2d 373 (Miss. 1985). Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), states a defendant may challenge an ex parte issuance of a search warrant on the truthfulness of the statements contained in the affidavit if the defendant makes a preliminary showing that the statements were knowingly or intentionally false, or made in reckless disregard of the truth. 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. at 2684. If the defendant accomplishes this, then he is entitled to a hearing to determine if there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, and if the alleged false statement was necessary for finding probable case, the search must be voided and the fruits excluded. Id. at 171-172, 98 S.Ct. at 2684-85. Information, however, may be purged from an affidavit and the remainder of the affidavit may be considered to determine if probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant. See, Walker v. State, 473 So.2d 435 (Miss. 1985). Bevill's assertions that there was a Franks v. Delaware, supra , violation are unconvincing. It is true that subsequent events proved Rickels erred in some of the statements set forth in the underlying facts, e.g. that the hair in the victim's hands was the same color as Bevill's, the similarity of Bevill's tennis shoes' footprints and the footprint at the scene, and bloodstain on the tennis shoes. Even so, at the suppression hearing Rickels was cross-examined at great length by Bevill's attorney, and there was no showing that Rickels intentionally misrepresented those facts, or made them in reckless disregard for the truth. Moreover, the remaining underlying facts clearly constituted probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. Bevill was in the area at the time of the slaying, and trying to get in Cowly's house during the time period when Amy was murdered. Lawrence Renfroe saw a young woman and a man wearing a white muscle shirt, and matching Bevill's description at 10:00 p.m. not far from the Clayton residence. The seat covers on Bevill's truck had been freshly laundered, and his truck was recently washed. The bloodied undershirt found near the body was the same size and brand as worn by Bevill. According to Rob Clayton, Bevill had opportunity to see Amy and her car, and know the location of the Clayton residence.