The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on July 30, 2026, that DNA testing conducted on David H. Serges' pants without a warrant or his consent was unconstitutional. This decision affects how law enforcement conducts searches and handles evidence in criminal cases, particularly regarding DNA testing. The ruling emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights against unreasonable searches under the Michigan Constitution.
The case arose from the murder of an elderly woman, whose death was linked to Serges through DNA evidence found on his pants. However, the court found that the police's actions violated Serges' constitutional rights, raising significant questions about the legality of warrantless searches in similar cases.
Background
David H. Serges was convicted of first-degree murder in connection with the death of an elderly woman in her home. The victim was discovered dead by a neighbor, and her death was ruled a homicide due to multiple blunt force traumas. Although no direct evidence linked Serges to the crime scene, he was arrested after witnesses reported seeing him in the neighborhood around the time of the murder. Serges had previously performed odd jobs for the victim, which added to the suspicion against him.
Serges was arrested on November 29, 2017, but there was confusion over whether he was arrested for an unrelated misdemeanor charge or for suspicion of murder. After his arrest, police seized his pants without a warrant or his consent and later submitted them for DNA testing, which revealed blood consistent with the victim's DNA.
During his trial, Serges' defense argued that the small amount of blood found on his pants did not connect him to the crime. The first trial ended in a hung jury, but in a second trial, Serges was convicted based largely on the DNA evidence. Following his conviction, Serges claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the DNA evidence, which he argued was obtained through an unconstitutional search.
The Ruling
The Michigan Supreme Court, in a ruling authored by Justice Richard H. Bernstein, found that the DNA testing of Serges' pants constituted an unreasonable search under Article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution. The court stated, "The DNA testing of defendant’s effects without a warrant or defendant’s consent constituted an unreasonable search." The ruling emphasized that the police did not have a warrant and that the DNA testing was not part of an established inventory search procedure.
The court highlighted that the search-incident-to-arrest exception did not apply in this case, as Serges was initially arrested for an unrelated misdemeanor charge. The majority opinion concluded that the trial counsel's failure to move to suppress the DNA evidence constituted ineffective assistance, stating, "Defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s errors because the DNA evidence was the only physical evidence that connected defendant to the scene of the crime." The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving DNA evidence and search and seizure laws in Michigan. It reinforces the need for law enforcement to obtain warrants before conducting searches that involve personal effects, especially when it comes to sensitive evidence like DNA. The decision also highlights the importance of effective legal representation in ensuring that defendants' rights are protected during criminal proceedings.
The ruling may lead to increased scrutiny of police practices regarding the collection and testing of DNA evidence, potentially affecting how cases are prosecuted in the future. It sets a precedent that could influence similar cases across the state, emphasizing the protection of individual rights under the Michigan Constitution.
What's Next
Following this ruling, Serges' case will return to the trial court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen whether the prosecution will seek to retry Serges without the DNA evidence or if there will be other developments in the case. Additionally, the ruling may prompt discussions about potential appeals or related cases that could further clarify the legal standards surrounding search and seizure in Michigan.