State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant

Summary

The court held that collecting Steeprock’s buccal swab without a search warrant or recognized exception violated the federal and state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. It further held that the DNA evidence was not saved by the exclusionary rule and that its admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a new trial. The court also held that accomplice “testimony” under the corroboration statute means statements made under oath, so the recorded calls and texts did not require a corroboration instruction.