In the Matter of an Investigation into the Death of Abe A., 53 N.Y.2d 291 (1981)

A court order to obtain a blood sample from a suspect is permissible if the prosecution establishes probable cause, a clear indication that relevant evidence will be found, and the method is safe and reliable, balancing the crime’s seriousness against the suspect’s right to bodily integrity.

Summary

This case addresses whether a suspect in a homicide investigation can be compelled to provide a blood sample. The New York Court of Appeals held that a court order to obtain a blood sample from a suspect may be issued if the People establish probable cause that the suspect committed the crime, a clear indication that relevant evidence will be found, and that the method used is safe and reliable. The court must balance the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence, and the unavailability of less intrusive means against the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion. The court found the standard was met in this case, reversing the Appellate Division’s decision.

Facts

Abe A. was found murdered in his apartment with signs of a violent struggle. Jon L., Abe’s business partner, discovered the body. Jon L. had abrasions on his face and bruises on his hands, including tooth marks, which he claimed were from an unreported mugging. Blood analysis in Abe’s apartment revealed two blood types: Abe’s and a rare type found in less than 1% of the population. Jon L. refused to voluntarily submit to a blood test. The District Attorney sought a court order to compel Jon L. to provide a blood sample.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the District Attorney’s motion for an order compelling Jon L. to provide a blood sample, finding probable cause and a minimal intrusion. Jon L. refused to comply, and the People moved to punish him for contempt. The court found him guilty of criminal contempt but stayed the sentence pending appeal. The Appellate Division reversed the contempt order and dismissed the order directing the blood draw as academic, arguing that Jon L. had not been formally charged with a crime. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a suspect in a homicide investigation can be compelled, pursuant to a court order, to supply a blood sample for scientific analysis before being formally charged with a crime.

Holding

Yes, because a court order to obtain a blood sample from a suspect may be issued provided the People establish probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime, a “clear indication” that relevant material evidence will be found, and the method used to secure it is safe and reliable. The issuing court must also weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence, and the unavailability of less intrusive means against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while New York law does not explicitly authorize courts to compel suspects to provide nontestimonial evidence, the court’s power to issue a search warrant implicitly grants this authority. CPL 690.05 (subd 2) empowers a criminal court to order a search of a designated person to seize evidence related to an offense. The court emphasized that Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated at two levels: the seizure of the person and the subsequent search for evidence. Seizure requires probable cause; detention of an individual to obtain physical evidence also necessitates probable cause. The court rejected the Appellate Division’s requirement of a formal charge, stating, “There is no constitutional right to be arrested.”

Regarding the bodily intrusion itself, the court established a multifaceted inquiry. A “clear indication” that the intrusion will supply substantial probative evidence is essential. The method must be safe, reliable, and impose minimal discomfort, performed by qualified medical personnel. Finally, the court must consider the worth of the evidence, the nature of alternative means, and minimize the intrusion. The court found probable cause that Jon L. committed the crime, noting the suspicious injuries and inconsistencies in his alibi. His blood type constituted material probative evidence, and no alternative means were available. The court noted, “That the incidence of the presumed killer’s blood type in the general population is less than one to a hundred is well documented by medical statistics.”

The court emphasized the balancing act between individual rights and societal interests, concluding that the stringent standards were met in this case.