"Cold Case" Comes to Minnesota

State v. Bartylla, Minn.S.Ct.

This is a DNA “cold hit” case. As a result of a burglary conviction, Mr. Bartylla’s DNA went into the BCA database. While working a homicide, a DNA type at the BCA ran the DNA results through that database, which hit upon Mr. Bartylla. Police or someone then obtained a second DNA sample from Mr. Bartylla and compared that all round with hits all round.

Following his conviction, Bartylla challenged the statute, 609.117, which requires collection of a DNA sample from convicted felony offenders, arguing that it was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejects that argument. The Court adopts a “totality of the circumstances” test and concludes that the state’s interest in obtaining the DNA profile outweighs the offender’s personal security interests. The state’s interests include exonerating the innocent, deterring recidivism, identifying offenders of both past and future crimes and bringing closure to victims of unsolved crimes. By comparison, the cheek swab just doesn’t measure up. ( In a footnote, the Court does say that if resort to a needle were necessary to extract the DNA that might be a different story.) The Court then adopts the same reasoning and results under the state’s constitutional provision.

Bartylla also ventured off into statistics land, arguing that the “product rule” is not properly to be utilized in “cold hit” cases. The Court says that it’s okay.