People v Serges
Key claim: The Michigan Supreme Court held that warrantless DNA testing of a defendant’s pants seized after an unrelated misdemeanor arrest was an unreasonable search under Article 1, § 11, not justified by inventory or search-incident-to-arrest exceptions, and that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the only physical evidence linking him to the murder.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-07-30. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
PEOPLE v SERGES
Docket No. 167154. Argued on application for leave to appeal January 21, 2026. Decided
July 30, 2026.
David H. Serges was convicted following a jury trial in the Genesee Circuit Court of first-
degree murder, MCL 750.316, in connection with the death of an elderly woman in her home; an
earlier trial on the same charge had resulted in a hung jury. The victim, who died from multiple
blunt force traumas to her head, was discovered by a neighbor; a window of several days was
identified between when she was last seen and when her body was found. Although no information
from the crime scene was found that identified defendant as a potential suspect, several individuals
mentioned that they had seen defendant in the neighborhood during the period of time when the
victim might have been killed, and defendant had previously done housework and yardwork for
the victim. When taken into custody and questioned, defendant denied any involvement in the
victim’s murder.
Defendant was arrested on November 29, 2017; later, there was a question whether he had
been arrested for a 2016 unrelated misdemeanor charge, as the police report stated, or on suspicion
of homicide, as a detective later testified. On November 30, defendant was arraigned on the
misdemeanor charge, and the detective collected defendant’s pants and other effects from the jail
property room and took them into police custody. More than a month later, and without first
seeking a search warrant or defendant’s consent, the police department submitted defendant’s
pants for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. The lab determined that a small amount of blood
found on the pants was consistent with the victim’s DNA.
At the second trial, the defense theory was that the minuscule amount of blood found on
defendant’s pants did not logically connect him to the bloody crime scene; defense counsel did not
move to suppress the DNA test results. After he was convicted and sentenced, defendant moved
for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing, arguing in relevant part that the DNA evidence from his
pants should have been suppressed on grounds that the DNA testing constituted an unconstitutional
search and seizure and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress this
evidence. The court, Elizabeth A. Kelly, J., denied the motion.
Defendant appealed by right in the Court of Appeals and filed a motion to remand for an
evidentiary hearing to develop his claim that trial counsel was ineffective, which the Court granted.
After the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial, holding that trial counsel had provided effective assistance; relevant to the issues here, the court found that defendant initially had been arrested and detained on the unrelated misdemeanor charge. The Court of Appeals, N. P. HOOD, P.J., and REDFORD, J. (SWARTZLE, J., concurring dubitante), affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence. 351 Mich App 88 (2024). Defendant sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered and heard oral argument on the application. ___ Mich ___; 20 NW3d 864 (2025).
In an opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, joined by Chief Justice CAVANAGH and Justices
WELCH, BOLDEN, and THOMAS, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:
The DNA testing of defendant’s effects without a warrant or defendant’s consent
constituted an unreasonable search under Article 1, § 11 of Michigan’s 1963 Constitution. The DNA testing of defendant’s pants without a warrant was not part of a reasonable inventory search, nor was it justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, especially when the arrest was for a charge unrelated to the reason for the search. Trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to move to suppress the fruits of this unconstitutional search; 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.
1. The DNA testing of defendant’s effects constituted a search under the trespass approach,
and it was an unreasonable search in violation of Const 1963, art 1, § 11, because it took place without defendant’s consent or a warrant. Under the trespass approach, a search occurs when the government occupies private property for the purpose of obtaining information. In other words, courts consider whether there was a physical trespass on a constitutionally protected area and whether there was an attempt to obtain information. The DNA testing of defendant’s pants was a search under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 11. Defendant’s effects or possessions were no less constitutionally protected than his own person, and the DNA testing was ordered by the police to obtain information. Because the DNA testing was a search under the trespass approach, it was unnecessary to consider whether and to what degree defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy either in his own pants that were worn in public or any blood found on those pants.
2. The warrantless search of defendant’s pants was not reasonable under the inventory-
search exception. It is not unreasonable for police, as part of the routine procedure incident to incarcerating an arrested person, to search any container or article in his possession, in accordance with established inventory procedures. DNA testing, however, is not part of established inventory procedure, and the police in this case collected defendant’s effects for an investigative search for which they had neither consent nor a warrant. DNA testing is also not necessary for the protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody, for the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, or for the protection of the police from potential danger. Here, there was no indication in the record that DNA testing of defendant’s effects was a standardized procedure when an individual is arrested and detained in jail. Further, the DNA testing of defendant’s effects weeks later by the police department did not contribute to any interests in safeguarding defendant’s property or protecting the police from danger. 3. The warrantless search of defendant’s pants was not reasonable under the search- incident-to-arrest exception. The exception permits warrantless searches incident to custodial arrests, and has traditionally been justified by the reasonableness of searching for weapons, instruments of escape, and evidence of crime when a person is taken into official custody and lawfully detained. DNA testin
Why this matters
The Michigan Supreme Court held that warrantless DNA testing of a defendant’s pants seized after an unrelated misdemeanor arrest was an unreasonable search under Article 1, § 11, not justified by inventory or search-incident-to-arrest exceptions, and that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the only physical evidence linking him to the murder.