DNA charge dismissed; Judge Strong dismisses appeal of Chapman’s trespassing conviction

On Nov. 3, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Craig S. Strong signed an order dismissing the appeal of the trespassing conviction of James Forrest Chapman of Belleville.
On Nov. 9, Chapman’s misdemeanor charge for refusing to give a DNA sample also was dismissed by Judge Brian A. Oakley at 34th District Court.
Judge Strong’s order dismissing the appeal noted the court found: “Matter Rendered Moot.”
After a jury found Chapman guilty of trespassing, Chapman’s attorney John Day filed the appeal of Chapman’s trespassing conviction, alleging a conspiracy by Van Buren Township police.
He said, even though the appeal requested an emergency hearing, which usually is set immediately, the Wayne County Circuit Court didn’t schedule the appeal hearing until two days before Chapman was released after completing the sentence, more than five and a half months later.
Chapman served two consecutive 90-day sentences, one for trespassing and one for disobeying a court order not to reenter the property in question. He served his time in the Clare County Jail.
Upon his slightly early release from the Clare County Jail for good behavior, VBT Police arrested him on a new charge of aggravated stalking and he is set for a Dec. 2 jury trial on that charge at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit.
Day also filed a motion to dismiss that charge and his motion will be heard on Nov. 20.
DNA charge dismissed
VBT police also charged Chapman with not providing a DNA sample after his arrest for aggravated stalking. That case was before Judge Oakley at 34th District Court on Nov. 9.
Attorney Day had filed a motion to dismiss the DNA charge and after listening to Day and Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Doug Dwyer debate the motion briefly, Judge Oakley granted Day’s motion for dismissal.
Judge Oakley made no comments on his decision, saying only, “Granted,” and then moving on to the next case.
Day cited parts of Michigan law to Judge Oakley and pointed out nothing says taking a DNA sample can be done without court order.
Prosecutor Dwyer failed to file a response to Day’s motion to dismiss, but told Judge Oakley, “It appears the police did what they were supposed to. A person was arrested for a felony and then the DNA sample is taken.”
Day pointed out the part of the law that said “pursuant to court order” which means a judge had to authorize the taking of the sample.
After Oakley dismissed the DNA case, Day told the Independent that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the DNA sample issue.
He said he talked to a number of prosecutors from other counties and they were unsure of what the new rules were.
Day said he read the statute with the “pursuant to court order” wording which is quite clear.
A breath test or blood sample for those accused of drunk driving and refuse to have a blood alcohol test is different, Day said. He said the courts see “implied consent” of drivers for driving while drinking. That’s how they go around the Fourth Amendment, Day said.
“But a person can’t be walking around the street, get picked up, and have to give a DNA sample,” Day said.
VBT Police said they attempted to get a DNA sample from Chapman upon his arrest based on a May 27 letter from Wayne County Prosecutor Kim Worthy advising all out-county police chiefs to get a sample “upon arrest” when a person is arrested for a felony. She stressed that included all felonies. She said P.A. 2014 No. 459, which went into effect July 1, 2015, called for that.
When Day was asked if he thought the prosecutor would file an appeal, he said he didn’t know. But, he said he is due for a hearing on his motion to dismiss Chapman’s aggravated assault charge and if that motion is granted there is no reason to get a DNA sample and the question would be moot.