State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jyrone White

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-0019

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jeremy Jyrone White,
Appellant.

Filed January 5, 2026
Reversed and remanded
Worke, Judge

Chisago County District Court
File No. 13-CR-18-1120

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Janet Reiter, Chisago County Attorney, David Hemming, Assistant County Attorney,
Center City, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, John Patrick Monnens, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Frisch, Chief Judge; Worke, Judge; and Cochran, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

WORKE, Judge

Appellant challenges his first-degree aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that

the district court violated his constitutional rights by ordering him to submit a DNA sample

under Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.02, subd. 2(1)(f). We reverse and remand.
 FACTS

In August 2017, at approximately midnight, a male called the front desk of a hotel

in North Branch asking for a room for the night. Because the hotel’s standard practice was

to lock the front doors at 11:00 p.m., the male had to be buzzed in. The male pulled out a

gun, pointed it at the employees, and demanded money. The male jumped over the desk,

pulled the phone lines from the wall, and took money from the till before jumping back

over the desk to leave the hotel.

During the investigation, law enforcement swabbed several areas of the hotel’s front

desk for DNA evidence because surveillance footage showed the suspect was not wearing

gloves. Law enforcement also collected a post-it note that the suspect appeared to touch

with his left hand. The evidence was sent to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)

for forensic analysis. The DNA results came back without a suspect, but two fingerprints

from the collected post-it note matched the fingerprints of appellant Jeremy Jyrone White.

Law enforcement used the information from the fingerprint analysis to create a photo

lineup with the two hotel employees. Both employees identified White as the man who

robbed the hotel.

In December 2018, respondent State of Minnesota charged White with first-degree

aggravated robbery. In December 2023, the state moved the district court to collect

White’s DNA under Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 9.02, subd. 2(1)(f). No search

warrant was requested. At the time the motion was granted, White was not represented by

counsel because his previously appointed public defender had been discharged. Thus, there

was no objection made to the state’s motion. The district court granted the rule 9.02

2
motion, and law enforcement warrantlessly collected a buccal-swab sample of White’s

DNA. Both the latent fingerprints and White’s DNA from the buccal swab were presented

as evidence to the jury at trial. A jury found White guilty of first-degree aggravated

robbery. White was sentenced to 48 months. This appeal followed.

DECISION

Constitutionality of the DNA Collection

White argues that the district court violated his constitutional rights by ordering the

collection of his DNA without issuing the requisite search warrant supported by probable

cause; thus, the DNA evidence obtained must be suppressed.

The United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and

seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. These provisions protect the

“personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the [s]tate.” State v.

Steeprock, __ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 3466647, at *4 (Minn. Dec. 3, 2025) (quotation

omitted). Under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f), a district

court may permit the taking of a defendant’s “blood, hair, saliva, urine, or samples of other

bodily materials” if the sample will “materially aid in determining whether the defendant

committed the offense charged.” However, “[t]he warrantless collection of a buccal swab

from a defendant pursuant to [r]ule 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f) . . . is an unreasonable search

that violates the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.” Steeprock, 2025 WL

3466647, at *1. Thus, the procedural rule does not circumvent the warrant requirement.

See id. at *6, *8. Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is prohibited from being used “in a

criminal proceeding against the individual whose rights were violated.” Id. at 8.

3
 Here, the district court ordered, without a warrant, that the state may obtain White’s

DNA through a buccal swab pursuant to rule 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f). This was a search

violating the constitutional rights of White. Because White’s constitutional rights were

violated, the DNA evidence collected was inadmissible at the criminal trial. 1

Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

The state argues that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to this

case. “Suppression of evidence is not required when an exception to the exclusionary rule

applies.” Steeprock, 2025 WL 3466647, at *9. A limited good-faith exception has been

recognized as a valid exception to the exclusionary rule. Id. Under the good-faith

exception, “the admission of illegally obtained evidence [is admissible] when investigators

acted based on an objectively reasonable belief that their actions were lawful.” Id. at *11.

However, because Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f),

“expressly states that all discovery orders are ‘subject to constitutional limitations,’” the

good-faith exception generally does not apply. See id. at *11 (quoting Minn. R. Crim. P.,

subd. 2(1)(f)).

1
We note that the supreme court’s decision in Steeprock was released after this case was
appealed to us. However, in its predecessor case, State v. Steeprock, 10 N.W.3d 683, 687
(Minn. App. 2024), aff’d, 2025 WL 3466647, we also concluded that “[a] valid search
warrant is required when the state takes a defendant’s saliva sample under Minn. R. Crim.
P. 9.02, subd. 2 (1), for the express purpose of determining whether the defendant’s DNA
was on a weapon involved in a crime.” We remind the state that the supreme court does
not vacate this court’s precedential decisions while pending further review; “a precedential
opinion of this court has immediate authoritative effect” to “promote consistency,
predictability, and stability in the law.” State v. Chauvin, 955 N.W.2d 684, 691 (Minn.
App. 2021), rev. denied (Minn. March 10, 2021).

4
 Here, the warrantless collection of White’s DNA was unconstitutional. We follow

the supreme court’s holding in Steeprock:

Even assuming without deciding that Rule 9.02, subdivision
2(1)(f), is equivalent to binding appellate precedent, the rule
does not specifically authorize warrantless collection of DNA
via buccal swab. . . . We therefore conclude that the good-
faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to the
circumstances of this case.

Id. (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the exclusionary rule applied, and the evidence of

White’s DNA that was unconstitutionally obtained should have been suppressed at trial.

Harmless Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

We must also determine whether this constitutional error was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt. See State v. McNeilly, 6 N.W.3d 161, 189, (Minn. 2024). An error is

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s decision is “surely unattributable” to the

error. State v. Shoen, 598 N.W.2d 370, 377 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted). “When

determining whether a jury verdict was surely unattributable to an erroneous admission of

evidence, [appellate courts] consider the manner in which the evidence was presented,

whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it

was effectively countered by the defendant.” State v. Sanders, 775 N.W.2d 883, 888

(Minn. 2009). DNA evidence can be “strong and persuasive to a jury.” State v. Garland,

942 N.W.2d 732, 741 (Minn. 2020). “If the error implicating a constitutional right was not

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, then appellate courts will award a new trial.”

Steeprock, 10 N.W.3d at 700 (quotation omitted).

5
 Here, while the state used three different methods to identify White to the jury, the

DNA evidence was persuasive and central to the state’s case. It would be impossible to

conclude that the jury’s verdict was not swayed by the DNA evidence obtained from White

under the district court’s rule 9.02 order. The error in admitting such evidence was not

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we reverse and remand on this issue, we

need not consider White’s confrontation-clause-violation claim. See In re Surveillance &

Integrity Rev., 996 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Minn. 2023).

Reversed and remanded.

6