Background
David Henry Serges was tried for the first-degree murder of an elderly woman who died from multiple blunt-force injuries in her home. Investigators found no crime-scene evidence initially identifying Serges as a suspect, but witnesses reported seeing him in the neighborhood during the possible time of the killing, and he had previously performed work for the victim. His first trial ended with a hung jury; a second jury convicted him, and he received a sentence of life without parole.
Serges was arrested and arraigned on an unrelated misdemeanor charge. Police took his pants and other belongings from the jail property room, then submitted the pants for DNA testing more than a month later without obtaining either a warrant or his consent. Testing revealed a small bloodstain consistent with the victim’s DNA. Trial counsel did not seek suppression, instead arguing that the tiny stain could have been transferred innocently while Serges performed chores for the victim. The trial court rejected Serges’s later ineffective-assistance claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that the forensic DNA testing was a search under the property-based trespass approach because police physically examined Serges’s constitutionally protected effects to obtain information. The warrantless search violated Article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution. It was not a valid inventory search because DNA testing was investigative, was not part of a standardized inventory procedure, and did not serve the property-protection or safety purposes underlying that exception.
The search-incident-to-arrest exception also did not apply. The trial court had found that Serges was arrested and detained on the unrelated misdemeanor, and Michigan precedent did not permit police to search his effects for evidence of a different crime on that basis. Counsel performed unreasonably by failing to seek suppression under existing caselaw, and Serges was prejudiced because the DNA result was the only physical evidence connecting him to the crime scene. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings; it did not directly reverse or vacate the murder conviction.
Key Takeaways
- Police custody of an arrestee’s clothing does not, by itself, authorize later warrantless forensic testing undertaken to gather evidence.
- Investigative DNA testing falls outside the inventory-search exception when it is not a standardized booking procedure and does not advance administrative or safety interests.
- Failure to pursue a supported suppression motion can constitute ineffective assistance when the challenged evidence is central to the prosecution’s case.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the government’s authority to take and inventory an arrestee’s belongings from its authority to conduct a later forensic examination of those belongings. Under Michigan’s Constitution, lawful possession does not give police unrestricted power to test personal effects for evidence of an unrelated offense.
The ruling also illustrates the prejudice inquiry for ineffective-assistance claims involving omitted suppression motions. Where unlawfully obtained forensic evidence supplies the prosecution’s only physical link between the accused and the crime scene, counsel’s failure to challenge it can undermine confidence in the verdict.