Mundt, David

10/8/2026

PD-0283-26

  1. “Appellant has standing to challenge the search of his DNA in the saliva of the thermometer probe.”
  2. "The 6th Court of Appeals erroneously relied on [Pollard v. State, 392 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012, pet. ref'd),] which was a case for obtaining a surreptitious DNA sample, which is for inmates and the Appellant was not an inmate because he was in the holding area of the jail where his vitals were taken.”
  3. “There is no case on point in ruling on these present set of facts, and this is an issue of first impression. The closest analogy can be to the blood taken by the State and tested in State v. Martinez[, 570 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019)].”

Mundt was arrested for outstanding traffic tickets and booked into county jail. After making a medical complaint, staff applied the standard screening protocol in such situations including taking Mundt’s temperature. Mundt was not asked for consent nor did he resist. When the technician went to discard the single-use plastic sleeve from the thermometer, an officer intercepted her and bagged it. It was sent for comparison to an “unknown” DNA profile on file with CODIS. It matched, leading to an arrest warrant for and search warrant for buccal swabs from Mundt. The trial court denied his motion to suppress. 

The court of appeals affirmed, relying on a Waco case called Pollard. It held that Mundt failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in either the thermometer sleeve or his own DNA. First, he did not attempt to maintain control over the sleeve. Second, the collection of DNA from prisoners is reasonable in light of an inmate’s diminished privacy rights, the minimal intrusion involved, and the legitimate government interest in using DNA to investigate crime.

Mundt distinguishes Pollard on the basis that Pollard had been a guest of the jail for multiple days following his arrest before he left a cup and a spoon in a detoxification cell. Mundt, by contrast, “was undergoing a mandatory medical screening at the book-in area” of the jail. He argues that he was never given an opportunity to have the sleeve and, as the record shows, his request would have been denied. Mundt also argues that his actions on other occasions to protect his garbage from law enforcement
who were surveilling his home support his subjective intent to keep his DNA private.