County District Court File No. 71-CR-15-713
Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Kathleen
A. Heaney, Sherburne County Attorney, Daniel N. Rehlander,
Assistant County Attorney, Elk River, Minnesota (for
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender,
Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for appellant).
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Peterson,
Judge; and Hooten, Judge.
a request that a suspect consent to provide a DNA sample does
not constitute interrogation under Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), and DNA
evidence is not testimonial or communicative in nature, a
police officer does not violate a suspect's Fifth
Amendment rights by asking for such consent after the suspect
has invoked his or her right to remain silent.
appeal from his convictions of possessing a short-barreled
shotgun and being a prohibited person in possession of a
firearm, appellant argues that the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress statements he made to law
enforcement and the DNA sample he provided. We affirm.
1, 2015, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant
at a residence. The homeowner was the target of the search
warrant. After encountering and handcuffing the homeowner at
the entry to the house, the officers were charged by a large
dog, which they were able to subdue. As the officers
continued walking through the house, they encountered and
handcuffed two more occupants, appellant Erik John Heinonen
and another man. After determining that the house was secure
but before searching the house, an officer told Heinonen and
the other occupants that they were not under arrest. The
officers then asked all three occupants to provide their full
names and dates of birth and to identify where they had been
when the officers entered the house. Heinonen provided his
full name and date of birth and indicated that he had emerged
from the upstairs southwest bedroom. While other officers
were searching the house, an officer brought Heinonen out to
the squad car, where he was read a Miranda
warning. Heinonen invoked his right to remain
silent, and the officer ceased his questioning and escorted
Heinonen back into the house.
their search of the residence, the officers recovered shotgun
shells and a short-barreled shotgun from the southwest
bedroom. The officers discovered that Heinonen was prohibited
from possessing a firearm and arrested him. After Heinonen
was transported to the jail, officers approached him to
request his consent for a DNA swab, but did not reread the
Miranda warning. Heinonen signed a consent form and
volunteered that he had touched the firearm. Heinonen's
DNA was found on the firearm, and he was charged with
possession of a short-barreled shotgun and being a prohibited
person in possession of a firearm.
moved to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement,
as well as the DNA sample he provided, and the district court
denied the motion. Prior to trial, Heinonen stipulated that
he was prohibited from possessing a ...