Court Opinion

ID: 9946431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 18:14:41.832573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:21.541720
License: Public Domain

People v Suarez
               2022 NY Slip Op 34691(U)
                   November 29, 2022
           County Court, Westchester County
        Docket Number: Indictment No. 20-70271
                  Judge: Robert J. Prisco
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                      FILED
        COUNTY COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK                                               MAR 06 2023
        COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER                                                        TIMOTHY C. IDONI
        ------------------------------------------------------------------x           COUNTY CLERK
                                                                                  COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

                                                                                                         g
        THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

                       -against-                                                    ORDER
                                                                                  DNA SAMPLE
        SANDRO SUAREZ,
                                                                               Indictment No: 20-70271

                                                                              ~6~ 10?/zd
                                                    Defendant.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------x
        ROBERT J. PRISCO, J.

                During a court appearance on July 29, 2022, the People served and filed a Notice of Motion
        for the Taking of Buccal Cell Samples, an Affirmation in Support of the Taking of Buccal Cell
        Samples, and a Memorandum of Law seeking an Order "requiring the defendant to permit the
        taking of DNA samples from his body via buccal cell swabs," pursuant to CPL§ 245.40 (1) (e).
                On August 30, 2022, Defendant filed an Affirmation in Opposition to the People's Motion
        for the Taking of Buccal Cell Samples, which is attached to his motion seeking omnibus relief.
                CPL § 245.40 (1) (e) provides that, "[a]fter the filing of an accusatory instrument, and
        subject to constitutional limitations, the court may, upon motion of the prosecution showing
        probable cause to believe the defendant has committed the crime, a clear indication that relevant
        material evidence will be found, and that the method used to secure such evidence is safe and
        reliable, require a defendant to provide non-testimonial evidence, including to [p]ermit the taking
        of samples of the defendant's blood, hair, and other materials of the defendant's body that involves
        no unreasonable intrusion thereof."

                Although CPL § 245.40 was enacted on January 1, 2020, the necessary showing by the
        prosecution to permit the taking of corporeal samples from a defendant has existed since Matter
        ofAbe A., 56 NY2d 288,291 [1982]. While the requirements set forth in Matter ofAbe A. pertained
        to a pre-accusatory instrument application to obtain corporeal evidence from a suspect, CPL §
        245.40 (1) (e) now specifically covers applications to obtain corporeal evidence from a defendant,
        like Defendant Suarez, upon whom an accusatory instrument has already been filed.

                In the case at bar, pursuant to Indictment No. 20-70271, Defendant Suarez was charged
        with one count of Burglary in the Third Degree pursuant to Penal Law [PL]§ 140.20 [Count One],
        one count of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree pursuant to PL § 155.35 (1) [Count Two}, and

                                                                 1

[* 1]
        one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree pursuant to PL § 165.50
        [Count Three]. 1 The indictment was filed on March 11, 2020, and Defendant was arraigned
        thereon on July 11, 2022. The charges pertain to Defendant's alleged unlawful entry into the
        Verizon Store building located at 89 Pondfield Road, in the Village of Bronxville, and his alleged
        theft of property from within. The offenses are alleged to have occurred at approximately 5:50
        a.m., on October 9, 2019.
                 During the processing of the Verizon Store, a plastic bag which appeared to have traces of
        blood on it was recovered from an office that was allegedly rummaged through and that plastic
        bag was submitted to the Westchester County Department of Laboratories and Research for
        forensic analysis.
                 Here, the indictment _filed against Defendant provides the requisite probable cause and
        statutory authority to obtain a DNA sample from him (see People v Fields, 160 AD3d 1116 [2018],
        lv. denied31 NY3d 1116 [2018]; People v Vieweg, 155 AD3d 1305 [2017], lv. denied30NY3d
        1121 [2018]; People v Roshia, 133 AD3d 1029 [2015], aff'd28 NY3d 989 [2016]; People v Hogue,
        133 AD3d 1209 [2015], lv. denied 27 NY3d 1152 [2016]; People v Pryor, 14 AD3d 723 [2005],
        lv. denied 6 NY3d 779 [2006]).

                 Moreover, on December 4, 2019, the Westchester County Department of Laboratories and
        Research (WCDLR) was advised by the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory that a search
        of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) revealed that a DNA profile collected from a
        forensic sample by the WCDLR was linked to the DNA profile from the defendant. The WCDLR
        Forensic Lab and Item numbers assigned to this matter reveal that the subject DNA profile was
        collected from the "plastic bag."
                 Pursuant to a WCDLR Forensic Biology CODIS Unit letter dated December 10, 2019, a
        detective of the Village of Bronxville Police Department was notified of the above information so
        that an additional DNA sample from Defendant could be obtained and submitted to the lab as soon
        as possible "so that it can be compared to the case evidence sample( s). " It is thus clear that material
        evidence linking Defendant to the crimes at issue can be expected to result from a comparison of

        1
          The charges of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree
        have been reduced by this Court to Petit Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree,
        respectively, due to the People's failure to present legally sufficient evidence as to the value of the property at issue.

                                                                    2

[* 2]
        the DNA profile obtained from the plastic bag and a known DNA sample obtained from the
        defendant (see People v Fields, supra).

            Regarding the method to be used to secure Defendant's safety and reliability of the saliva
        samples, the Court of Appeals has recently addressed such in People v Goldman, 35 NY3d 582
        [2020]. Like Matter of Abe A., Goldman involved a request for corporeal evidence from an
        uncharged suspect. However, the Court specifically discussed the securing of DNA samples by
        way of buccal swabs, which is the method that would be used in this case.
                Citing and quoting from the 2013 United States Supreme Court case of Maryland v King,
        569 US 435, the Court of Appeals in Goldman accepted the Supreme Court's characterization of
        the buccal swab procedure as a "brief and minimal intrusion" that is "quick and painless" and
        "undeniably safe." The Court in Goldman also noted that where a defendant has been validly
        arrested based upon probable cause, his expectations of privacy are not offended by the minor
        intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks, given the significant state interests in identifying him.
        Here, unlike the defendants in Matter ofAbe A. and Goldman, Defendant Suarez has not only been
        arrested but he has also been indicted. Finally, following the reasoning of the Supreme Court in
        Marylandv King, the Goldman Court noted that because "the utility of DNA identification in the
        criminal justice system is already undisputed," a defendant cannot mount a credible claim that the
        DNA evidence is unlikely to provide material evidence. This Court believes the same to be true
        in this case.

                Furthermore, upon balancing the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence
        to the investigation and the unavailability ofless intrusive means of obtaining the evidence, on the
        one hand, against a concern for Defendant's Constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion
        on the other, the Court finds that the scale tips in the People's favor in this regard.
                As to the seriousness of the crime, Burglary in the Third Degree is a Class "D" felony
        offense which a carries a maximum term of 2 1/3 to 7 years in state prison.
                As to the importance of the evidence to the investigation, a match of the Defendant's DNA
        to the DNA profile allegedly recovered from the plastic bag would be very important to establish
        his identity and participation in the crimes for which he has been indicted.
                Finally, the Court finds that there is no less intrusive means of obtaining the evidence from
        Defendant. "The buccal swab--now a simple and common method for securing a ... defendant's

                                                           3

[* 3]
        DNA .. .is undeniably safe, consists of a minimal intrusion and involves no discomfort" (People v
        Goldman, 35 NY3d at 594).
               Accordingly, while recognizing that the People's request for a DNA sample in this case
        could have been made earlier, as the People have satisfied the statutory requirements of CPL
        § 245.40 and the requirements of Matter ofAbe A. and its progeny, the People's motion requiring
        Defendant to permit to the taking of DNA samples from his body via buccal cell swabs is granted.
               IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the People shall have an investigator from the Westchester
        County District Attorney's Office or a member of the Bronxville Police Department available on
        December 2, 2022 for the taking of such sample.

               The foregoing constitutes the Order of this Court.

        Dated: White Plains, New York
               November 29, 2022

        To:    HON. MIRIAM E. ROCAH
               Westchester County District Attorney
               111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
               White Plains, New York 10601
               Attn: Assistant District Attorney Annmarie Stepancic

               THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF
               WESTCHESTER COUNTY
               Attorney for Defendant Sandro Suarez
               150 Grand Street-Suite 100
               White Plains, New York 10601
               Attn: Ketienne Telemaque, Esq.

                                                        4

[* 4]