The Colorado Court of Appeals issued one opinion today. The case summary is published below with a link to the entire opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Dwayne Anderson, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 64. Defendant, David Dwayne Anderson, appeals his 2022 conviction for a murder that occurred in 1981. In 2020, Anderson became a suspect in the 1981 homicide after law enforcement, using subsequently developed technology — including DNA sequencing and genetic genealogy analysis — identified Anderson as a potential source of biological evidence left at the scene of the crime. Relying on this investigative lead and without a warrant, investigators inspected Anderson’s garbage, which he had left in a publicly shared dumpster, and seized a discarded soda can. Still without a warrant, investigators analyzed DNA deposited on that soda can, which matched the DNA profile that had been found on evidence at the crime scene. Based in large part on this DNA match, law enforcement was able to establish probable cause to
obtain an arrest warrant and a search warrant to seize and test DNA evidence obtained directly from Anderson, ultimately linking him to the 1981 homicide.
On appeal, Anderson contends that the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage and the subsequent warrantless DNA testing of genetic material found on the soda can violated the United States Constitution’s and the Colorado Constitution’s guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. Applying the well-established principle that there is no privacy interest in abandoned property, we conclude that the collection of an empty soda can — and the DNA evidence on it — didn’t require a search warrant. Further, relying on the constitutionality of Crim. P. 41.1 — which allows the government to collect and test
nontestimonial identification evidence (including DNA) from a suspect on less than probable cause — we conclude that the warrantless testing of DNA deposited on lawfully obtained
abandoned property for the purpose of identification doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment or the Colorado Constitution.
For these reasons, we reject Anderson’s claim that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence obtained from the search and seizure of his garbage and the fruits of that search — namely, his DNA profile. Because we also conclude that the trial court properly admitted other acts evidence and that the prosecution didn’t engage in reversible misconduct, we affirm the conviction. Read the opinion.