Summary
The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a post-presentment, ex parte application for a search warrant to obtain a defendant's blood sample is not a critical stage of the prosecution under the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to participate through counsel in the probable-cause determination because he could later challenge the evidence through a motion to suppress and search-warrant proceedings require secrecy. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel entitles a defendant, after a presentment has been returned, to participate through counsel in an adversarial hearing concerning probable cause for a search warrant authorizing the seizure of a blood sample.
- Whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion to suppress DNA evidence obtained pursuant to the ex parte search warrant.
Holdings
- A post-presentment, ex parte search-warrant proceeding to obtain a blood sample from a defendant is not a critical stage of the prosecution, and the Sixth Amendment does not entitle the defendant to an adversarial hearing on the issuance of the warrant.
Key quotations
“We now hold that a post-presentment, ex parte search warrant proceeding to obtain a blood sample from the defendant is not a critical stage of the prosecution, and two compelling reasons inform our holding.” (130 S.W.3d at 782-83)
“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Sixth Amendment does not entitle the defendant to an adversarial hearing on the issuance of the search warrant.” (130 S.W.3d at 783)
Factual background
The victim was sexually assaulted in her home by an attacker whose face she did not see, but police recovered clothing and biological evidence connected to the assault. Investigators later obtained a letter and envelope associated with Blye, recovered saliva from the envelope, and determined that the saliva DNA profile matched DNA from seminal fluid recovered during the rape examination and from the victim's shirt. After obtaining an ex parte search warrant, investigators secured Blye's blood sample, which produced a DNA match to the seminal-fluid evidence.
Procedural history
A Sullivan County grand jury charged Blye with aggravated burglary and aggravated rape. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress DNA evidence derived from a blood sample obtained under an ex parte search warrant, and a jury convicted him; the court imposed consecutive sentences totaling fifty-five years. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed that judgment.