In People v. Anderson, a divided Colorado Court of Appeals panel upheld the warrantless testing of DNA deposited on a soda can recovered from a publicly shared dumpster. The majority emphasized that investigators lawfully obtained the discarded can and used the DNA for identification. The court did not give police unlimited authority to extract every kind of genetic information from anything a person leaves behind.
That last sentence matters. A lot.
When lawyers or investigators reduce this opinion to “abandoned DNA has no privacy protection,” they skip the most important part of the analysis: What was seized, what testing was performed, why it was performed, and what the government did with the result?
What Happened in People v. Anderson
David Dwayne Anderson became a suspect in a 1981 Colorado homicide after DNA sequencing and genetic-genealogy work identified him as a potential source of biological evidence from the crime scene. Investigators later inspected garbage he had placed in a publicly shared dumpster and recovered a discarded soda can.
Without first obtaining a warrant for the can or its DNA, investigators had the can swabbed and tested. According to the appellate opinion, the resulting DNA profile matched a profile developed from crime-scene evidence. Investigators then used that information, together with other facts, to obtain warrants for Anderson’s arrest and a direct DNA sample. Anderson was convicted, and the appellate panel affirmed the judgment on August 20, 2026.
The court addressed two related but separate questions:
- Did Anderson retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage and the discarded can?
- Even if police could lawfully take the can, did they need separate judicial authorization before testing the DNA on it?
The majority answered no to both.
The Holding Was About Identification
The majority concluded that warrantless testing of DNA deposited on lawfully obtained abandoned property, when done for identification, did not violate the Fourth Amendment or article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution.
The opinion relied in part on Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 41.1. That rule permits a court to authorize certain nontestimonial identification procedures, including the taking of samples, under a standard different from a traditional probable-cause search warrant. The majority reasoned that if Colorado law permits compelled collection and testing of identification evidence under that framework, identification testing of DNA on lawfully obtained abandoned property did not require a warrant.
But the court expressly left a different question for another day: whether the state may test lawfully obtained DNA for a purpose other than identification without a warrant.
That is why “police own your DNA once you throw something away” is not a careful statement of the holding.
The Fingerprint-versus-Cellphone Distinction
Judge W. Eric Kuhn joined the majority but wrote separately. He described the premise that controlled his vote this way: the government used the DNA like a fingerprint, not like a cellphone.
That is a useful way to understand the boundary. A traditional forensic identification profile is designed to compare biological material with a person. Broader genetic analysis may reveal or support inferences about relatives, ancestry, traits, health, or patterns connected to where a person has been.
Calling all of that simply “DNA testing” hides the difference between answering “Is this the same person?” and exploring “What else can this biological material tell us?”
The concurrence did not say those broader uses are automatically lawful. It highlighted their privacy implications.
The Dissent Saw a Separate Search
Judge Timothy J. Schutz agreed that police could search the garbage and seize the soda can. He disagreed that they could test the DNA without a warrant or another recognized exception.
His partial dissent treated the genetic material as carrying privacy interests distinct from the abandoned container. It also raised concerns about private companies collecting biological material and delivering genetic information to the government.
That disagreement is not a side note. It shows that the legal question is unsettled enough to divide judges applying the same facts. It also gives counsel a roadmap for identifying issues that the majority’s narrow holding may not resolve.
What Counsel Should Examine in a Discarded-DNA Case
A useful review begins with the actual sequence of events, not the phrase “trash pull.” I would ask:
- Where was the property located, and who had access to it?
- Had it truly been discarded, or was it temporarily placed somewhere?
- Who collected the item: police, a contractor, a private investigator, or someone else?
- What instructions did the collector receive?
- Was the item itself lawfully obtained under the controlling jurisdiction’s law?
- Which laboratory received it, and what testing was requested?
- Was the work limited to an identification profile?
- Were the sample, extract, raw data, and reports preserved?
- Was any genetic-genealogy, ancestry, phenotype, medical, or familial analysis performed?
- What did investigators know before the collection, and what later warrants relied on the result?
- Do the state constitution, statutes, rules, or local precedents provide protection beyond the federal Fourth Amendment?
The word “identification” should also be tested against the actual laboratory work. A request label does not answer what data were generated, retained, searched, or shared.
Why Anderson Is Not a Nationwide Rule
People v. Anderson is a decision from one division of an intermediate Colorado appellate court. It applied federal and Colorado law to a particular soda can recovered from a shared dumpster and to DNA testing characterized as identification testing.
It does not bind courts in other states. It does not resolve every type of discarded property, every method of collection, every state constitutional claim, or every potential use of genetic data. The opinion may also be subject to further review.
Maryland v. King does not erase those distinctions. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a cheek swab collected under a Maryland statute from a person arrested for a serious offense. That is a different collection setting, with a different governmental justification and statutory framework.
Good legal analysis compares the facts before borrowing the conclusion.
Key Takeaways
- Separate the seizure of the object from the testing of biological material on it.
- Identify the precise purpose and scope of the DNA analysis.
- Read the concurrence and dissent, not just the opening summary.
- Check state constitutional protections in addition to the Fourth Amendment.
- Trace what later warrants relied on the DNA result.
- Do not turn a fact-specific intermediate appellate decision into a universal rule.
Need an Investigative Review of the DNA Timeline?
I help counsel reconstruct what investigators knew, how biological evidence was collected and handled, what the reports actually support, and where police procedure intersects with constitutional questions. To discuss a criminal or civil matter, request a case review.
Request a case reviewRelated YouTube Video
Police Say They Can Own Your DNA—This Court Opinion Is WILDAccuracy and Compliance Note
This article summarizes a divided appellate decision and distinguishes the majority opinion, special concurrence, and partial dissent. It does not state that law enforcement literally owns discarded DNA or that every warrantless DNA test is lawful. People v. Anderson concerns the facts before that Colorado panel and identification testing of DNA on lawfully obtained abandoned property. The article is educational information, not legal advice. Counsel should confirm the opinion’s current status and apply the controlling law in the relevant jurisdiction.