Court Opinion

ID: 9600769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:31:12.115436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:38.741340
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
concurring.
Although I concur fully in the majority opinion, I write separately with respect to Division 2 in order to point out that, even if the detective had not informed Holmes that his DNA sample would be used for comparison purposes, the trial court still would not have erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence pertaining to that sample.
The police were not required to explain to [Holmes] that his blood or hair could be used in prosecutions involving other victims, or that he had a right to refuse consent. [Cits.] *334Further, like a fingerprint, DNA remains the same no matter how many times blood is drawn and tested and a DNA profile can be used to inculpate or exculpate suspects in other investigations without additional invasive procedures. It would not be reasonable to require law enforcement personnel to obtain additional consent or another search warrant every time a validly-obtained DNA profile is used for comparison in another investigation.
Pace v. State, 271 Ga. 829, 832 (2) (524 SE2d 490) (1999).