The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a sweeping decision on December 3, 2025, declaring that the warrantless collection of DNA samples through buccal swabs from criminal defendants violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. The ruling in *State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock* fundamentally changes how law enforcement can collect genetic evidence in Minnesota.
The court held that the warrantless collection of a buccal swab from a defendant pursuant to Rule 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f), of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure constitutes an unreasonable search that violates both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The decision represents a significant expansion of Fourth Amendment protections in the state's criminal justice system.
In reaching its conclusion, the court determined that the warrantless collection of DNA evidence requires a new trial for Steeprock because no exception to the exclusionary rule applies and the constitutional violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The exclusionary rule generally prevents evidence obtained through constitutional violations from being used at trial.
The court's opinion includes a notable jurisprudential development: it explicitly overrules *In re Welfare of J.W.K.*, 583 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1998), finding that precedent clearly conflicts with the inevitable discovery rule articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Nix v. Williams*, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). The inevitable discovery doctrine allows illegally obtained evidence to be admitted if the prosecution can prove the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means.
The decision was authored by Justice Gaïtas, with Justices McKeig and Moore concurring in part and dissenting in part. This split suggests the court grappled with complex constitutional and procedural questions in reaching its final determination.
Rule 9.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure has governed the collection of biological samples from defendants in criminal cases. The rule allowed for the collection of buccal swabs – DNA samples taken by swabbing the inside of a person's cheek – without requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant. The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision now invalidates this practice as unconstitutional.
The case involved Seneca Warrior Steeprock as the respondent and cross-appellant, with the State of Minnesota serving as appellant and cross-respondent. Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, along with Assistant Attorneys General Thomas R. Ragatz and Keaon Dousti, represented the state. Saint Louis County Attorney Kimberly J. Maki also participated in the prosecution.
Steeprock was represented by the State Public Defender's office, including Chief Appellate Public Defender Cathryn Middlebrook and Assistant State Public Defender Benjamin J. Butler. The case proceeded through Minnesota's appellate courts before reaching the state supreme court.
The implications of this ruling extend far beyond Steeprock's case. The decision will require Minnesota law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before collecting DNA samples from criminal defendants, adding a significant procedural step to investigations that rely on genetic evidence. Prosecutors will need to demonstrate probable cause to a judge before requesting such biological samples.
This ruling aligns with a broader national trend of courts scrutinizing DNA collection practices and their constitutional implications. While some states have upheld warrantless DNA collection in certain circumstances, Minnesota now joins jurisdictions that require warrant protection for such searches.
The decision also affects how Minnesota courts will handle cases where DNA evidence was collected without warrants under the now-invalidated rule. Defense attorneys in pending cases may seek to exclude such evidence or request new trials based on this precedent.
For law enforcement agencies across Minnesota, the ruling necessitates immediate changes to DNA collection protocols. Officers and investigators will need training on new warrant requirements and procedures for obtaining judicial approval before collecting biological samples.
The court's explicit overruling of *J.W.K.* demonstrates the evolving understanding of constitutional protections in the digital age, where genetic information carries unprecedented identifying power and privacy implications. The decision reflects growing judicial recognition that DNA contains vast amounts of personal information deserving of heightened constitutional protection.
Looking ahead, the state may consider appealing this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, though such appeals from state constitutional grounds face significant procedural hurdles. More likely, the Minnesota Legislature may consider revising the criminal procedure rules to comply with the new warrant requirements while maintaining law enforcement's ability to collect necessary evidence.
The *Steeprock* decision joins a series of recent rulings nationwide that have strengthened privacy protections in criminal procedure, particularly regarding biological evidence and digital searches. As genetic testing technology advances and becomes more prevalent in criminal investigations, courts continue to balance law enforcement needs against individual privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.