Skip to main content

Doo-Doo DNA Testing Flushes Out Alleged Burglar

By Brett Snider, Esq. on October 04, 2013 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

An Oklahoma burglary suspect was charged based on some evidence that he allegedly left behind after neglecting to flush his victim's toilet.

Charles Marqull Williams, 20, was charged with first-degree burglary in Oklahoma County District Court on Wednesday, on the strength of DNA that he left on a piece of used toilet paper, The Oklahoman reports.

Didn't know there was DNA in doo-doo? Probably neither did Williams.

No. 2 DNA Made Williams No. 1 Suspect

It may sound like science fiction, but DNA technology has advanced to the point where even dog owners are being nailed by their dog's poop DNA. Williams may have been unaware of the recent advance in poop-testing technology when he allegedly popped a squat on the toilet in a house he was burglarizing.

The Oklahoman reports that in January 2012, Williams allegedly broke into an Oklahoma City residence, swiped some items, and then left an unflushed gift in the owner's toilet, including "a used piece of toilet paper on the floor." Classy.

Unfortunately for Williams, fecal DNA is just as good as any other DNA evidence, and even more than a year after the fact, his poop slammed him with first degree burglary.

Failure to Flush = First Degree Burglary

Burglary laws differ in each state, but under typically a burglary is committed when:

  • A person breaks and enters
  • A building or enclosed structure
  • With the intent to commit a crime.

In most states, the burglar's intent to commit a crime must be either a theft or a felony.

In William's case, Oklahoma law defines first degree burglary as breaking and entering into an occupied dwelling (i.e., a house with someone in it) either by force or lockpicking. The Oklahoman reports that Williams had been previously convicted of second degree burglary, which does not require the burgled building to be an occupied residence or dwelling.

If Williams is convicted on the strength of his crappy calling card, he may face a minimum of seven years in prison. And his prison cellmate might be less understanding about his bathroom etiquette.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard