Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Monica Dycus v. State of Indiana
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Case Number: 49A05-1705-CR-978
Judge: Patricia A. Riley
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Plaintiff's Attorney: George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney: Ruth Ann Johnson
Description: On January 8, 2016, El-Hadj Barry (Barry) noticed his ex-girlfriend, Dycus,
following him when he was on his way to pick up a female friend from school.
Barry pulled over and told Dycus to stop tailing him. Dycus did not respond
and continued to follow Barry to the school. After picking up his friend, Barry
decided to drive around for a while in an attempt to lose Dycus. However,
Dycus “was shouting” at Barry “every time [he] came to a stop. She was
tailgating.” (Transcript p. 87). Barry observed Dycus swerving and if he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 3 of 21
“accidentally would have made a quick stop, she would have hit [his] car.” (Tr.
p. 87). Barry’s friend called 911.
 Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Christopher Cooper
(Officer Cooper) was dispatched to the area near 16th Street and Lafayette Road
in response to the 911 call. When Officer Cooper arrived at the intersection,
Barry and Dycus were stopped at a red light. Dycus’ “driver’s door was
opened. [Dycus] ha[d] one foot on the pavement. The other foot was on the
brake. And, she was leaning out of the car window yelling at the vehicle in
front of her.” (Tr. p. 103). Officer Cooper activated his emergency lights.
Approaching Dycus’ car, he requested her identification and instructed her to
remain in the vehicle. After speaking with Barry and checking his information,
Officer Cooper informed him that he was free to leave.
 Officer Cooper continued to detain Dycus because he believed she was driving
on a suspended license. While speaking with her, the officer noticed the “odor
of marijuana coming from her breath.” (Tr. p. 107). Dycus told Officer Cooper
that “there was nothing in her vehicle, [and] that her and her mom had smoked
marijuana about an hour before.” (Tr. p. 107). At that point, Officer Cooper
radioed for backup, requesting for the help of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Officer Christopher Winter (Officer Winter), who is certified to conduct a drug
recognition evaluation (DRE). Upon arriving, Officer Winter asked Dycus to
perform a field sobriety test. While conducting the field sobriety test, Officer
Winter smelled “a strong odor of marijuana coming from her when she spoke.
It was so strong that [the officers] thought that she had some hidden on her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 4 of 21
somewhere.” (Tr. p. 118). Dycus passed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test,
which indicated that she was not under the influence of alcohol. She failed the
walk-and-turn test and the one-legged stand test. Dycus consented to a certified
breath test, which returned negative for the presence of alcohol. However,
while performing the breath test at the IMPD Northwest office, Officer Winter
observed a green, leafy substance in Dycus’ mouth and “a green streak going
down her tongue.” (Tr. p. 130).
 Officer Winter advised Dycus that the signs that she was impaired were not
consistent with the negative alcohol results and asked Dycus if she would
submit to a DRE. A DRE is a standardized, 12-step program designed to
determine whether an individual is impaired by the use of drugs based on the
totality of the evaluation. Pursuant to the DRE guidelines, it is possible to infer
the type of substance that caused the impairment by using a seven-category1
evaluation matrix. During the exam, which also includes three behavioral tests,
Officer Winter took Dycus’ temperature with an oral thermometer, he
measured her blood pressure, and examined her arms. He illuminated her nasal
cavities with a flashlight to look inside. He ordered Dycus to open her mouth
and examined the inside. Officer Winter measured Dycus’ pupil size in three
different lighting conditions. Some parts of the DRE took place in a pitch black
room—in this case, a closet at IMPD’s northwest office. Officer Winter entered
1 These seven categories are: (1) central nervous system depressants, (2) central nervous system stimulants, (3) hallucinogens, (4) PCP, (5) inhalants, (6) cannabis, and (7) narcotic analgesics. (State’s Exh. 8).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 5 of 21
all the observations of Dycus’ DRE into a “drug symptom matrix.” See State’s
Exh. 8). At the conclusion of the thirty-minute DRE, Officer Winter concluded
that Dycus was under the influence of marijuana.
 Dycus consented to a blood draw and was transported to Eskenazi hospital. A
nurse at Eskenazi drew two vials of blood from Dycus and handed the blood
samples to Officer Winter, who sealed them with evidence tape, signed his
name, and transported the blood samples to the IMPD property room.
According to the Indiana State Department of Toxicology Analysis Request
Form, the blood samples were then received by Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Officer Michael Duke, who transported the vials to the Indiana State
Department of Toxicology (ISDT) for testing. ISTD assigned an identifying
number to the blood samples and the vials were subsequently shipped via
FedEx to National Medical Services (NMS).
 NMS is an accredited laboratory, located in Pennsylvania. ISDT outsources
some of its casework to NMS, including blood tests for marijuana. NMS lab
support specialist Samantha Hill (Hill) prepared the blood sample for testing,
and NMS forensic scientist Craig Leopold analyzed the sample, which tested
positive for Delta-9 THC in the amount of 3.0 ng/ml. Delta-9 THC is an active
metabolite of marijuana with psychoactive effects, and which “generally shows
impairment at around a level of one nanogram per milliliter.” (Tr. p. 227).
 On January 9, 2016, the State filed an Information, charging Dycus with Count
I, operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 6 of 21
misdemeanor. On October 27, 2016, the State amended the charging
Information, adding Count II, operating a vehicle with a controlled schedule I
or II substance or its metabolite in the person’s body, a Class C misdemeanor.
On March 16, 2017, the trial court conducted a jury trial. During the trial court
proceedings, Dycus objected to the admission of the DRE, arguing that the
officer should have given her a Pirtle2 advisement prior to requesting her
consent. Dycus also contended that the admission of the chain of custody
forms and shipping documents for her blood samples violated her right to
confrontation. The trial court overruled both objections. At the conclusion of
the evidence, the jury found Dycus guilty as charged. At the sentencing hearing
on April 19, 2017, the trial court vacated Count II and sentenced Dycus to 365
days on Count I, with 361 days suspended to probation.
 Dycus now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
 Generally, “[a] trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of
evidence and we will disturb its rulings only where it is shown that the court
abused that discretion.” Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1045 (Ind. 2011). A
trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and
2 Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975), stands for the proposition that the Indiana Constitution requires that a person in custody be informed of the right to consult with counsel prior to consenting to a search.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 7 of 21
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplies
the law. Mack v. State, 23 N.E.3d 742, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
But where, as here, a constitutional violation is alleged, the proper standard of
appellate review is de novo. Speers v. State, 999 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind. 2013), cert.
denied, 134 S.Ct. 2299 (2014).
II. Admission of Chain of Custody Exhibits
 As an issue of first impression, Dycus contends that the trial court violated her
Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation by admitting formal documents from
the ISDT to establish a detailed chain of custody without presenting live
testimony. Maintaining that these documents contain extrajudicial statements
about the chain of custody of Dycus’ blood sample, Dycus asserts that the
documents must be susceptible to cross-examination. While recognizing that
the State was not required to admit those forms, as omissions in the chain of
custody go towards weight, Dycus argues that once the state moved to admit a
strict and detailed chain of custody, live testimony was required to preserve her
Right to Confrontation under the United States Constitution.
 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides in relevant part
that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be
confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI. “[T]his
bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions.”
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177
(2004). In Crawford, the United States Supreme Court held that the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 8 of 21
Confrontation Clause guarantees a defendant the right to confront all of those
who bear testimony against him. Id. at 51. Testimonial statements are
“inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable,
the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Id. at 54. A
statement is testimonial when “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation [is] made
for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact,” and this “core class of
testimonial statements” includes: (1) “ex parte in-court testimony or its
functional equivalent;” (2) “extrajudicial statements contained in formalized
testimonial materials;” (3) “statements made under circumstances that would
lead an objective witness to reasonably believe that the statement would be
available for use at a later trial;” and (4) “statements taken by police officers in
the course of interrogation.” Id. at 51-52.
 Five years after Crawford was decided, the Supreme Court considered the
Confrontation Clause implications of admitting sworn certificates of forensic
analysts. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 309, 129 S.Ct. 2527,
174 L.Ed. 2d 314 (2009), the trial court allowed certified lab reports indicating
the weight and identity of cocaine to be admitted into evidence. Id. The
defendant was convicted and his convictions were affirmed by the state appeals
court. Id. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, vacated the defendant’s
conviction, with the majority determining that the “certificates of analysis”
were “incontrovertibly a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the
purpose of establishing or proving some fact,” and thus were testimonial in
nature. Id. at 310. The Court observed that certificates of analysis were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 9 of 21
functionally identical to live in-court testimony, doing “precisely what a witness
does on direct examination,” and that the analysts who authored them were
witnesses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Id. at 310-11. The Court, citing its
decision in Crawford, held that “[a]bsent a showing that the analysts were
unavailable to testify at trial and that petitioner had a prior opportunity to cross
examine them, petitioner was entitled to be confronted with the analysts at
trial.” Id. (emphasis in original).
 The Court was careful, however, to reject the notion that the prosecution must
call everyone whose identity is relevant in establishing the chain of custody, the
authenticity of the sample, or the accuracy of the testing device used to perform
the analysis. The Melendez-Diaz Court stated:
[W]e do not hold, and it is not the case, that anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample, or accuracy of the testing device, must appear in person as part of the prosecution’s case. While the dissent is correct that “[i]t is the obligation of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody, . . .” this does not mean that everyone who laid hands on the evidence must be called. As stated in the dissent’s own quotation, . . . “gaps in the chain [of custody] normally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.” It is up to the prosecution to decide what steps in the chain of custody are so crucial as to require evidence; but what testimony is introduced must (if the defendant objects) be introduced live. Additionally, documents prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimonial records.
Id. at 311, n.1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 10 of 21
 The Supreme Court once again addressed the scope of the Confrontation
Clause in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d
610 (2011). In Bullcoming, the defendant was charged with driving under the
influence, and at trial, objected to the prosecution’s attempt to admit a blood
content analysis report through the testimony of an analyst who did not
perform or observe the defendant’s blood test. Id. at 651. Instead of calling the
analyst who signed and certified the forensic report, the prosecution called
another analyst who had not performed or observed the actual analysis, but was
familiar with the general testing procedures of the laboratory. Id. The
Bullcoming Court declined to accept this surrogate testimony, despite the fact
that the testifying analyst was a “knowledgeable representative of the
laboratory” who could “explain the lab’s processes and the details of the
report.” Id. at 673. The Court stated simply: “[t]he accused’s right is to be
confronted with the analyst who made the certification.” Id. at 652.
 Just as in Melendez-Diaz, the forensic report that was “introduce[d]” in
Bullcoming “contain[ed] a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact
at a criminal trial.” Id. at 658. Specifically, the report was introduced at trial
for the substantive purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted by its out
of-court author—namely, that the defendant had a blood-alcohol level of 0.21.
Id. This was the central fact in question at the defendant’s trial, and it was
dispositive of his guilt. See id. at 664. The Court emphasized that the forensic
laboratory report at issue did more than merely report a “machine-generated
number;” the report verified that the lab had received the blood sample intact
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 11 of 21
with the seal unbroken, that the testing analyst performed a particular test in
accordance with a specific protocol, and that nothing affected the integrity of
the sample or the validity of the analysis. Id. at 659. In concurrence, Justice
Sotomayor highlighted the narrow scope of the majority’s decision and
reaffirmed the proposition that not all of those in the chain of custody are
required to provide live testimony. Id. at 670. In so doing, Justice Sotomayor
cited the relevant language of Melendez-Diaz, stating: “[Not] every person noted
on [the lab] report must testify.” Id at 670 n.2.
 Most recently, in Speers v. State, 999 N.E.2d 850, 855 (Ind. 2013), cert. denied,
134 S.Ct. 2299 (2014), the sole analyst who conducted the DNA testing and
prepared the laboratory reports that were introduced as exhibits testified as to
the results of the testing at trial. However, Speers complained that the
prosecution had violated his confrontation rights because the technician who
removed the blood sample from a piece of glass to a swab for testing—but did
not perform any testing—did not testify at trial. Id. Relying on Melendez-Diaz
and Bullcoming, our Indiana supreme court concluded that “there is no
Confrontation Clause violation where the State introduces evidence and links in
the chain of custody of that evidence are missing. Id. at 855. “Indeed, ‘the
State need not establish a perfect chain of custody, and any gaps go to the
weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.’” Id. (citing Kennedy v. State,
578 N.E.2d 633, 639 (Ind. 1991)).
 Turning to the case at hand, Dycus objected to the State’s Exhibits 9 through
12, as being testimonial statements admitted in violation of her Right to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 12 of 21
Confrontation. Asserting that the primary purpose of the documents was to
identify, describe, and vouch for the reliability of the evidence during the
proceedings, Dycus maintained that the Exhibits constituted “formalized
extrajudicial statements created for the purpose of prosecution[.]” (Appellant’s
Br. p. 19). Exhibit 9 is the ISDT’s analysis request form, listing Dycus’ name
and identifying characteristics, the charge, the submitting agency, and Dycus’
case number # 16-00359. It includes a specific section on evidence collection
and chain of custody information, identifying the analyst and task. The form
does not include any test results. Exhibit 10 is the ISDT case chain of custody
report for case # 16-00359 and describes twenty separate transfers of Dycus’
blood sample over a period of nine months. It specifies the dates, times, and
purposes for which these transfers were made, as well as the person/location
sending the sample and the person/location receiving the sample. Exhibits 11
and 12 are ISTD’s shipping manifests, representing that sample # 16-00359 was
shipped via FedEx, and containing the signatures of the persons sending and
receiving the sample.
 We find Dycus’ claim that her Confrontation Right was violated to be
unpersuasive. Dycus’ argument contradicts the plain language of Melendez
Diaz, which provides that not every individual who “laid hands” on the
evidence need to testify to satisfy the Confrontation Clause; rather, only when
the statement sought to be introduced is testimonial in nature live testimony is
required. Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 311 n.1. In analyzing whether a statement
is testimonial and therefore subject to the protections of the Confrontation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 13 of 21
Clause under Crawford, we apply the “primary purpose test,” in which “we
objectively evaluate the circumstances in which the encounter occurs and the
statements and actions of the parties.” Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 359,
131 S.Ct. 1143, 1156, 179 L.Ed. 93 (2011). Here, the primary purpose of the
creation and maintenance of State’s Exhibits 9 through 12 was to document the
evidence and attempt to accurately account for the samples as they were
transferred from IMPD’s northwest office to ISTD and ultimately to NMS.
These chain of evidence forms were not created for the sole purpose of
providing evidence against the defendant. In fact, none of these Exhibits
include test results or any evidence that would aid in the prosecution’s burden
of establishing Dycus’ guilt.
 Moreover, Melendez-Diaz and the other cases relied upon by Dycus are factually
distinguishable from the case at bar. Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming all addressed
situations in which a forensic report was admitted to prove evidentiary facts at
issue other than, or in addition to, the chain of custody. It was on those
separate ground that the plaintiffs’ Confrontation Clause challenges focused.
Here, the testing and certifying analyst testified and was subject to cross
examination. The analyst explained in detail the process used to test Dycus’
blood and testified to the results of the analysis at trial, where the defense was
provided a full opportunity to cross-examine her. Accordingly, as the State’s
Exhibits 9 through 11 were not testimonial or created for the purpose of
prosecuting Dycus, Dycus’ rights under the Confrontation Clause were not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 14 of 21
III. Pirtle Advisements
 Next, Dycus argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the
results of the DRE because she was not given a Pirtle advisement before
conducting the thirty-minute evaluation. Likening the DRE to an unlimited
search which was quasi-medical in nature, Dycus maintains that she was
entitled to be advised of her right to speak with counsel prior to submitting to
the test. In response, the State maintains that because the DRE was not very
intrusive and is only likely to reveal the presence of drugs, no Pirtle warning was
 Under the Indiana Constitution “‘a person in custody must be informed of the
right to consult with counsel about the possibility of consenting to a search
before a valid consent can be given.’” Joyner v. State, 736 N.E.2d 232, 241 (Ind.
2000) (citing Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634, 640 (1975)). In Pirtle, the Indiana
Supreme Court held that “a person who is asked to give consent to search while
in police custody is entitled to the presence and advice of counsel prior to
making the decision whether to give such consent.” Pirtle, 323 N.E.2d at 640.
[T]he purpose of the Pirtle doctrine is to ensure that no person in custody consents to an unlimited search unless he is fully informed of the constitutional rights he is waiving. The purpose of the doctrine is served by the requirement that a person in custody be advised that he may consult with an attorney before consenting to the unlimited search.
Ackerman v. State, 774 N.E.2d 970, 981 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Pirtle, 323
N.E.2d at 640), reh’g denied, trans. denied. This right is unique to Indiana and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 15 of 21
has no parallel under the Federal Constitution. See United States v. LaGrone, 43
F.3d 332, 337 (7th Cir. 1994) (“A person in custody has no federal constitutional
right to consult with an attorney before consenting to a search of his property.
However, the Indiana [C]onsitution does afford such a right.”). And, where a
defendant’s rights under Pirtle have been violated, the fruits of the search are not
admissible in court. See Brown v. State, 653 N.E.2d 77, 80 (Ind. 1995).
 We have previously held that the purpose of the Pirtle doctrine would not be
served by extending that doctrine to apply to field sobriety tests or chemical
breath tests and that, therefore, a police officer is not required to advise a person
in custody that he may consult with an attorney before administering field
sobriety tests or a chemical breath test. See Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925,
944 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), reh’g denied, trans. denied; Ackerman, 774 N.E.2d at
982. In addition, we have held that “a person who drives on Indiana’s roads
has no right to consult with an attorney prior to deciding whether or not to
submit to a chemical test under the Implied Consent Law.” Dalton v. State, 773
N.E.2d 332, 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied; Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d
1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Most recently, our
supreme court declared that a buccal swab for DNA gathering purposes does
not require a Pirtle advisement. Garcia-Torres v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind.
 In Ackerman, we held that police officers are not required to advise a person in
custody that he may consult with an attorney before administering field sobriety
tests and, thus, field sobriety tests are not governed by Pirtle. Ackerman, 774
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 16 of 21
N.E.2d at 982. We noted that the only four Indiana opinions in which the
Indiana Supreme Court has applied the Pirtle doctrine have all addressed police
searches of either dwellings or automobiles and that the Court “only applied
Pirtle where, without the suspect’s consent, the search in question was a general,
unlimited search and would only have been reasonable with probable cause.”
Id. at 981. Accordingly, we concluded that field sobriety tests “are qualitatively
different from the general, unlimited searches that concerned the Pirtle court.”
Id. at 981. We further reasoned that field sobriety tests “are non-invasive[,] take
little time to administer[,] are narrow in scope[,] and are unlikely to reveal any
incriminating evidence other than impairment.” Id. Thus, we declined to
extent the Pirtle doctrine to require the police to advise a person in custody that
he may consult with an attorney before administering a field sobriety test. Id. at
 Similarly, in Schmidt, we held that police are not required to advise a person in
custody that he may consult with an attorney before offering a person a
chemical breath test. Schmidt, 816 N.E.2d at 944. We reasoned that “[l]ike
field sobriety tests, chemical breath tests are ‘qualitatively different from the
general, unlimited searches that concerned the Pirtle court.’” Id. at 943 (quoting
Ackerman, 774 N.E.2d at 981). We noted that chemical breath tests “reveal
only whether the suspect has alcohol in his system[,] are narrower in scope and
more specific than field sobriety tests[, and] take little time to administer.” Id.
 We extended this analysis to chemical blood tests in Datzek. See Datzek, 838
N.E.2d at 1160. “Like chemical breath tests, chemical blood tests are
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 17 of 21
qualitatively different from general unlimited searches that concerned the Pirtle
court.” Id. Chemical blood tests only reveal the presence of alcohol or drugs in
a person’s body and take little time to administer. See id. “Furthermore,
consent to submit to a chemical blood test under Indiana’s implied consent law
is only consent to submit to an ‘analysis of a person’s blood . . . for the
determination of the presence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or a drug.’”
Id.; see I.C. § 9-13-2-22. Therefore, we concluded that “unlike the suspect in
Pirtle, a suspect who is asked to submit to a chemical blood tests does not
subject himself to a general search without probable cause.” Id.
 Lastly, in Garcia-Torres, our supreme court declared that “Pirtle and the ensuing
cases have applied this rule only to the weightiest intrusions.” Garcia-Torres,
949 N.E.2d at 1238. However, “the intrusion here is slight. The swabbing [for
DNA] caused no discomfort, and Garcia-Torres has virtually no legitimate
interest in concealing his identity following his lawful arrest.” Id. at 1239.
Comparing fingerprinting with a buccal swab, the court noted that “[t]his Court
has long held that the police are allowed to take fingerprints and other
identifying physical information from those lawfully arrested.”3 Id.
Accordingly, our supreme court opined that a Pirtle advisement is not required
for a buccal swap. See id.
3 Our Supreme Court appeared to find it important that “two witnesses testified at length about how the samples taken from Garcia-Torres were used. There is no evidence in the record that the DNA from GarciaTorres’s swab was or will be used for any purpose other than comparing it to the samples in the rape kit and from the shoe.” Id. at 1236.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 18 of 21
 As is clear from Pirtle and its progeny, our case law declines to apply the Pirtle
doctrine to intrusions that are “slight” and not very “serious,” instead
seemingly reserving its application to searches of homes and vehicles. Id. at
1238-39. However, the Indiana Constitution makes no such distinction,
protecting Hoosiers against “unreasonable searches” of “their persons as well as
their “houses, papers, and effect.”4 See Article I, Section 11 Indiana
Constitution. Accordingly, a person maintains a reasonable expectation of
privacy in that person’s body and body cavities. See Smith v. State, 744 N.E.2d
437, 439 (Ind. 2001) (acknowledging a legitimate expectation of privacy in body
and blood samples). When courts have permitted DNA searches or other
bodily intrusions, they have done so on the basis that the search is minimally
intrusive or a statutory exception was present.
 Lacking a statutory exception as in the case of chemical blood tests, the main
question becomes whether the DRE can be characterized as a limited search,
only amounting to a slight intrusion into an individual’s privacy. We conclude
that it cannot. Unlike a blood test which only takes “three minutes” and a field
sobriety test, which takes “little time to administer,” the DRE in the instant
case took thirty minutes to conduct. See Datzek, 838 N.E.2d at 1159, 1160.
Whereas the chemical blood draw and field sobriety tests are qualitatively
4 The same is true under the Federal Constitution. As Justice Brennan expressed in writing for the majority in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed. 2d 908 (1966), “Search warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and, absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 19 of 21
limited, a DRE is all-encompassing and amounts to a quasi-medical
examination. The evaluation not only includes the field sobriety tests, but also
involves a detailed search of an individual’s body. The thoroughness of the
search, including shining a flashlight up a person’s nose, inserting a
thermometer into an individual’s mouth, inspecting the arms, and placing the
suspect in a pitch black closet for the sole purpose to measure the reaction of the
person’s pupil in various lighting conditions are, when taken together, invasive
and expansive in scope, and resemble a general search. It provides police
officers not only with possible incriminating evidence, but also with
information about a person’s general health. Most importantly, unlike the pass
fail character of the other tests, the result of the DRE battery of tests must be
analyzed through a drug symptom matrix, which requires a police officer’s
subjective assessment of the outcome and which “might be colored by [his]
primary involvement in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.”
See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed. 889 (1968). Because
the DRE is akin to an unlimited search that the Pirtle doctrine is designed to
protect against, we hold that a person in custody must be advised of his right to
consult with an attorney prior to consenting to a DRE. As Dycus was not given
the Pirtle advisement, her consent was invalid as a matter of law and the
evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.
 The State now contends that even though Dycus was not informed of her right
to consult with counsel, the evidence is admissible because the error was
harmless. Errors in the admission of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1705-CR-978 | December 29, 2017 Page 20 of 21
unless they affect the substantial rights of a party. Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d
1259, 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). In determining whether error in the
introduction of evidence affected a defendant’s substantial rights, we must
assess the probable impact of the improperly admitted evidence upon the jury.
Id. When there is substantial independent evidence of guilt such that it is
unlikely that the erroneously admitted evidence played a role in the conviction
or where the offending evidence is merely cumulative of other properly
admitted evidence, the substantial rights of the party have not been affected,
and we deem the error harmless. Smith v. State, 839 N.E.2d 780, 784 (Ind. Ct.
 Excluding the DRE test and its subsequent result, leaves the State with the
testimony of Officer Cooper who noticed the smell of marijuana emanating
from Dycus and who testified to Dycus’ admission that she and her mom had
smoked marijuana an hour prior to her driving her vehicle. Officer Cooper
conducted a field sobriety test, which was inconclusive and Officer Winter
observed a green streak going down Dycus’ tongue. It is undeniable that the
positive results of the DRE and the subsequent blood test had a powerful
impact on the jury’s verdict. Therefore, we find it doubtful whether the jury
would have reached a similar result in the absence of the improperly admitted
evidence. As the admission of the evidence was not harmless, we reverse the
verdict and remand for a new trial.
Outcome: Based on the foregoing, we hold that the admission of ISTD’s chain-of-custody
forms were not subject to the protection of the Confrontation Clause of the
United States Constitution under the circumstances before us. However, we
reverse and remand for a new trial because a person in custody must be advised
of the right to counsel before being able to validly consent to a DRE.