Background
David Henry Serges was charged with murdering an elderly woman who was found dead in her home from multiple blunt-force injuries. Although nothing recovered at the crime scene initially identified Serges as a suspect, witnesses reported seeing him in the neighborhood during the possible time of the killing, and he previously had performed housework and yardwork for the victim.
Police arrested Serges in November 2017 on an unrelated misdemeanor charge. After his effects were inventoried at the jail, a detective took his pants into police custody and, more than a month later, submitted them for DNA testing without obtaining a warrant or Serges’s consent. Testing revealed a small bloodstain consistent with the victim’s DNA. Serges’s first murder trial ended in a hung jury; at a second trial, the DNA evidence was admitted without a suppression motion, and the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. The trial court rejected his ensuing ineffective-assistance claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that the forensic DNA testing of Serges’s pants was a search under the property-based trespass approach and was unreasonable under Article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution. Serges’s pants were constitutionally protected possessions, and police physically examined them to obtain information. Because that analysis established a search, the Court did not need to decide whether Serges retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the pants or the bloodstain.
Neither asserted exception to the warrant requirement applied. DNA testing was an investigative measure, not a standardized inventory procedure serving property-protection or institutional-safety interests. Nor was it a valid search incident to arrest: Serges was arrested on the unrelated misdemeanor, while his clothing was later tested for evidence of the murder. The Court further held that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to seek suppression under existing Michigan precedent and that Serges was prejudiced because the DNA result was the only physical evidence connecting him to the crime. It reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Lawful police possession of an arrestee’s clothing does not itself authorize later warrantless forensic testing for investigative purposes.
- DNA testing is not justified as an inventory search when it is neither standardized nor directed toward safeguarding property, preventing claims, or maintaining safety.
- Counsel’s failure to seek suppression was prejudicial because the DNA evidence supplied the prosecution’s only physical link between Serges and the murder.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm distinction under the Michigan Constitution between taking and inventorying an arrestee’s possessions and later conducting forensic tests designed to uncover evidence. Police ordinarily must obtain a warrant or consent before using lawfully held personal effects to investigate a different offense.
The ruling also underscores that failing to pursue a supported suppression argument may constitute ineffective assistance when the challenged evidence is central to the prosecution’s case, even if counsel instead tries to explain that evidence at trial.