Judge Judy Kim
Prosecutors moved for collection of a saliva sample from Taylor for DNA analysis after being charged with criminal possession of a weapon. Taylor opposed, alternatively seeking a protective order, in the event the motion was granted, to prevent disclosure of the DNA profile for purposes other than prosecution of the subject matter. Taylor sought to bar OCME from posting its findings in a database maintaining DNA information. The court found, in People v. Taylor, prosecutors met their burden of establishing probable cause as an officer recovered a firearm from the rear pocket of the driver’s seat and Taylor and one other person were the only ones in the car seated in the second row within reaching distance of the gun. It found a comparison of the DNA profile of a sample from the gun and Taylor’s buccal swab was relevant and material in deciding if Taylor possessed the gun. In a nearly identical companion decision, People v. Perez, the court found a DNA swab of Perez would likely lead to material and relevant evidence as a comparison of his DNA profile with an unidentified sample from a white shirt with complainant’s blood. Also, the court disagreed that Executive Law §995-d supported issuance of a protective order, denying same, and granting prosecutors’ motions in both decisions.
