On March 31, 2023 The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Jerry Lynn Burns in the 1979 murder of Michelle Martinko. The PDF of the opinion is here.
“In a 5-2 decision, the majority found police followed the law in obtaining Burns’ DNA from an abandoned drinking straw, and did not violate his rights either under the federal or Iowa constitutions.”
This decision goes beyond denying Burns’ appeal. We now have another State Supreme Court decision on the reasonable expectation of privacy.
It involves DNA retrieved from discarded materials collected by the government without a search warrant. The prevailing doctrine is that a person has no reasonable expectancy of privacy concerning discarded materials.
Is DNA different?
The crucial point is that DNA holds all your AND your family’s information such as the genetic makeup of the ancestral line, predispositions, medical issues, etc. It reveals things that some people think is best not to disclose publicly such as adoption. Normally, a search warrant is needed to get people’s medical files, adoption papers, etc. In other words, is this type of search a violation of the Fourth Amendment? And if not, why?
The Case
Jerry Burns’ DNA was found on Michelle Martinko’s dress as he had cut his hand. At trial, he did not offer an alternative explanation as to how his DNA got on Martinko. Burns was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Burns’ appeal was watched by several civil rights groups that seek a clear explanation of what is and what is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment and the limitations of the invasive power of DNA. IF there are special circumstances or exceptions to the normal conditions under which the government must have a search warrant, what are those exceptions? Is discarded material or trash an exception?
The Appeal
Burns claimed the suppression of his DNA was required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution AND article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. A few points from the opinion:
1: Did police need a warrant to collect the straw that Burns had discarded or to analyze the DNA that was attached to that straw? NO.
2: Is the discarded straw an extension of something that belongs to Burns, his house, or his property as per the Fourth Amendment? NO.
3: Was that straw considered private property? NO, the DNA left on the straw was in public and is not considered private. Had he for example, taken the straw and placed it in his car, then yes. To search the car, police would have had to get a search warrant as the car would be considered Burns’ private property.
4: What is society’s reasonable expectation of privacy? Trash left publicly is expected to be collected and to be discard so there is no expectation of privacy.
5: Does article 1 section 8 of the Iowa Constitution provide greater protection than the US Fourth Amendment? NO.
The Decision
The Iowa Supreme Court based its decision on “the case before us.” So, they asked themselves how was the DNA used? It was used to compare it to the DNA found on Martinko’s dress and for nothing else. The lab report on the results stated that the profile came from a male source and most importantly that “the “DNA donor could NOT be eliminated as the major contributor to the DNA profile previously developed.” It did NOT speak about predispositions, ancestry, etc.
So “after careful consideration of the case before us, we conclude that the Fourth Amendment did not require police to obtain a warrant before collecting the straw or before analyzing DNA on the straw to determine whether it matched DNA found on Martinko’s dress.”
The Final Word
Was the evidence sufficient to support Burns’ conviction? Here are the Justices in their own words:
- “Martinko was brutally murdered during a vicious struggle in her Buick. Burns does not dispute this. Instead, Burns only raises an identity issue, a claim that he wasn’t the murderer. But there was ample evidence from which a jury could conclude that he was.
- The DNA from Burns’ buccal swab was consistent with the DNA found on Martinko’s dress to a probability of 1 out of 100 billion unrelated persons.
- Plus, Burns’ DNA matched the profile obtained from the Buick’s gearshift lever. This match was close enough to eliminate about 99.94% of all males in the United States.
- Also, law enforcement observed “noticeable” scars on both of Burns’ hands and arms. He could have received the cuts during a bloody struggle with Martinko.”
I have not discussed other issues, but you have the link to read the opinion. Cases like this bear watching as with every new advancement in forensic sciences we must ensure the rights of the defendant and at the same time, uphold the rule of law.