State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant

Syllabus

1. The warrantless collection of a buccal swab from a defendant pursuant to Rule 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f), of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure is an unreasonable search that violates the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. 2. The warrantless collection of a buccal swab from the defendant requires a new trial because no exception to the exclusionary rule applies and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We overrule In re Welfare of J.W.K., 583 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1998), as clearly in conflict with the inevitable discovery rule articulated in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and reiterated in State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 849 (Minn. 2011). 3. The word \testimony\ in Minnesota Statutes section 634.04, which requires corroboration of accomplice testimony, means statements made under oath. Affirmed.