Law360 (July 31, 2026, 6:09 PM EDT) -- A man convicted of first-degree murder will receive a new trial after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that police violated the state constitution by testing blood on his pants without a warrant or his consent. 

In a 5-1 decision, the court determined that the DNA analysis of David Henry Serges' pants amounted to a search under Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution.

"We hold that the DNA testing constituted a search and that this search was an unreasonable one because none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applied," Justice Richard H. Bernstein wrote for the majority. 

The court also concluded that Serges received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to seek suppression of the DNA evidence, which the majority said was the only physical evidence connecting him to the killing. 

The justices reversed a Michigan Court of Appeals decision affirming Serges' conviction and life-without-parole sentence, remanding the case to the Genesee County Circuit Court. 

Justice Brian K. Zahra dissented, saying Serges no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the articles of clothing because police lawfully possessed them after he was booked into jail. 

The case arose from the November 2017 killing of 70-year-old Gail Anderson. According to the opinion, a neighbor discovered her body inside her home, police found blood throughout the house, and the medical examiner determined she died from multiple blunt-force injuries to the head. 

Investigators recovered a fingerprint at the scene, but it did not match anyone, according to the opinion. Witnesses later reported seeing Serges in the neighborhood when the victim was likely killed. Serges performed odd jobs in the area, including housework and yard work for the victim. 

Police questioned Serges, who admitted to knowing the victim but denied harming her, the opinion said. 

The high court accepted the Genesee County trial court's finding that Serges was arrested on Nov. 29, 2017, on an unrelated misdemeanor warrant stemming from a 2016 case, even though the lead detective later testified he believed Serges had been arrested on suspicion of murder. 

The majority said the Court of Appeals improperly substituted its own view of the evidence for the trial court's factual finding. 

After Serges was booked into jail, Detective Eric Freeman removed certain of Serges' personal belongings, including his pants, from the jail property room and transferred them into police custody without obtaining a warrant or Serges' consent, the opinion said.

Police initially sought a murder warrant, but prosecutors declined because investigators lacked sufficient evidence, it added.

More than a month later, police submitted Serges' pants to the Michigan State Police crime laboratory for DNA testing. A March 8, 2018, report found that a tiny bloodstain was consistent with the victim's DNA, the opinion noted, and murder charges followed days later. 

At trial, Serges' attorney did not move to suppress the DNA evidence. Instead, the defense argued that the tiny bloodstain, which could not be seen with the naked eye, did not prove Serges committed the crime. Counsel suggested the victim, who was diabetic and often bled from her feet, could have transferred blood to Serges' clothing while he was doing chores in her home.

The first trial ended in a hung jury, the opinion noted. A second jury convicted Serges of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life without parole. 

"A defendant's effects or possessions, here his pants, are no less constitutionally protected than his own person, and the DNA testing was ordered by the police to obtain information," Justice Bernstein wrote. 

The prosecution argued the search was valid under the inventory search and search incident to arrest exceptions to the warrant requirement, yet the high court rejected both arguments.

Inventory searches are administrative procedures intended to safeguard an arrestee's property, protect police from claims that property was lost or stolen, and prevent detainees from possessing dangerous items, the majority said. 

"The difficulty with the prosecution's argument in this case is that DNA testing is not part of established inventory procedure," Justice Bernstein wrote. 

The court noted that the pants had already been removed from the jail property room and placed into police evidence before they were sent to the state crime laboratory. 

The majority also held that the search incident to arrest exception did not apply because Serges was arrested on the unrelated misdemeanor warrant while police searched the pants for evidence of a homicide. 

"Where a defendant has been arrested and incarcerated for one crime, the search incident to arrest exception does not apply when the defendant is then searched for evidence of another crime," the court said. 

The majority further concluded that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to pursue suppression.

"It is unreasonable both to fail to seek exclusion of the results of the search, when trial counsel could have still fallen back on his chosen trial strategy if a motion to suppress was denied, and to choose a more damning factual scenario to present to the jury," Justice Bernstein wrote. 

The court found the error prejudicial because, without the DNA evidence, almost nothing connected Serges to the killing.

"We are grateful that the Michigan Supreme Court delivered justice for Mr. Serges. In its opinion, the court reaffirmed the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures that our state constitution has provided for over 60 years," said Maya Menlo of the Michigan State Appellate Defender's Office, who represents Serges, in a written statement Saturday. "The police need proper justification before intruding on a civilian's privacy. They did not have that here. Mr. Serges has spent nearly nine years in prison because of unlawful government action. We are relieved that our Supreme Court vindicated his constitutional rights." 

The state did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. 

In his dissent, Zahra argued the majority improperly expanded protections under the Michigan Constitution beyond those recognized under the Fourth Amendment. 

"I fail to see any trespass in this case," Justice Zahra wrote, explaining that police already lawfully possessed the pants when the testing occurred. 

Because the testing was constitutional, Zahra concluded the evidence was properly admitted and that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise what he viewed as a meritless suppression argument. 

Justice Noah P. Hood did not participate in the high court review because he had served on the Michigan Court of Appeals panel that previously decided the case on appeal.

The state is represented by Katie Jory of the Genesee County Prosecutor's Office. 

Serges is represented by Maya Menlo of the Michigan State Appellate Defender's Office. 

The case is The People of the State of Michigan v. David Henry Serges, case number 167154, in the Michigan Supreme Court.

--Editing by Philip Shea.

Update: This story has been updated to include a comment from Maya Menlo. 

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.