U.S. v. Schreiber

In prosecution on 2010 bank robbery charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress DNA evidence linking him to bank robbery, where sample of defendant’s DNA was obtained following his 2011 arrest on state liquor store robbery charge. Record showed that state court eventually granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence/quash his arrest on liquor store robbery charge based on finding that police lacked probable cause to arrest him on liquor store robbery. However, defendant was not entitled to suppression of DNA evidence obtained in his federal bank robbery charge, in spite of state court’s action on his liquor store robbery charge, since: (1) state court grand jury had previously determined that there was probable cause to arrest defendant on liquor store charge; (2) under Kaley, 133 S.Ct. 1090, defendant could not challenge grand jury’s determination of probable cause; (3) defendant’s DNA sample was taken after grand jury’s indictment, but before state court suppression order; and (4) police were entitled to rely on fact of defendant’s indictment to support its taking of his DNA sample, and federal govt. was entitled to rely on fact of state grand jury indictment in choosing to use that evidence for its own prosecution.