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 death, and he had previously performed work for the victim. His first trial ended in a hung jury; a second jury convicted him, and he received life imprisonment without parole.
Police took Serges into custody in November 2017 and arraigned him on an unrelated misdemeanor charge. A detective removed Serges’s pants and other effects from the jail property room. More than a month later, without obtaining Serges’s consent or a warrant, police submitted the pants for DNA testing. Testing revealed a small bloodstain consistent with the victim’s DNA. Trial counsel did not seek suppression of that evidence. After posttrial proceedings, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that forensic DNA testing of Serges’s pants was a search under the trespass approach because police physically examined his constitutionally protected effects to obtain information. The warrantless search violated Article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution because neither consent nor a warrant authorized it and no exception to the warrant requirement applied.
The testing was not a valid inventory search because forensic DNA analysis was neither a standardized booking procedure nor connected to protecting property, preventing false claims, or maintaining safety. It also was not justified as a search incident to arrest: the trial court found that Serges had been arrested on the unrelated misdemeanor, while police tested his clothing to investigate the murder. The Court further held that counsel performed unreasonably by failing to seek suppression under existing law and that the omission prejudiced Serges because the DNA result was the only physical evidence connecting him to the crime scene.
In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Justice Zahra dissented, concluding that no constitutional search occurred because Serges lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in clothing lawfully held by police. Justice Hood did not participate.
Key Takeaways
- Police possession of an arrestee’s clothing does not itself authorize later forensic testing intended to gather evidence.
- DNA testing is not an inventory search when it falls outside standardized administrative procedures and serves an investigative purpose.
- Under Michigan law, the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not justify searching property for evidence of a crime unrelated to the offense of arrest.
- 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 lawful custody of personal effects from authority to conduct a later investigative examination of them. Michigan police generally must obtain a warrant or consent before forensically testing property held through jail inventory procedures unless a recognized warrant exception actually covers that testing.
The ruling also underscores the importance of litigating suppression issues through an ineffective-assistance claim when trial counsel failed to object. Here, the evidentiary significance of the DNA result established prejudice, requiring reversal of the appellate judgment and further proceedings in the trial court.