State v. Sharpe (Concurrence & Dissent)

Summary

The opinion concurs in the majority's discussion of the jury instructions but dissents from its conclusion that warrantless extraction, testing, and storage of DNA shed onto discarded property did not implicate a protected privacy interest. It would hold that article first, § 7, protects a reasonable expectation of privacy in identifying information derived from shed DNA when the person was not arrested, lacked probable cause, and did not voluntarily expose or abandon the genetic material. Because the opinion is a concurrence and dissent, its reasoning is noncontrolling.