Image: Illustration by Edel Rodriguez
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
In 2009 the San Francisco police arrested Lily Haskell when she allegedly attempted to come to the aid of a companion who had already been taken into custody during a peace demonstration. The authorities released her quickly, without pressing charges. But a little piece of Haskell remained behind in their database.
Haskell is one of hundreds of thousands who have had their DNA extracted as part of an enormous expansion of what were once categorized as criminal data banks. Police in about 25 states and federal agents are now empowered to take a DNA sample after arresting, and before charging, someone. This practice occurs even though many of those in custody are never found guilty. If they are cleared, their DNA stays downtown, and they must undergo a cumbersome procedure to clear their genetic records.
Courts nationwide are now wrestling with the civil-liberties implications. Some have held that the practice violates the Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Other courts, including one that heard a legal challenge brought by Haskell, have agreed with law-enforcement officials that lifting DNA is no different from taking a fingerprint, an established routine even for those not convicted. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will probably decide this matter.
The ability of DNA technologies to match a tiny sliver of tissue left at a crime scene to a suspect gives them an undeniable allure to law enforcement. For critics, the unreasonableness of this “search” relates to the information-rich nature of DNA. It does more than just ID people. It also has the potential to furnish details about appearance, disease risk and behavioral traits. The laws establishing DNA databases attempt to guard privacy by limiting inspection to only 13 relatively short stretches of DNA among the billions of “letters” of code that make up the genome. Yet that protection may not be enough. Once those 13 markers are extracted, law-enforcement agencies continue to store the larger biological sample. Civil-liberties organizations worry that officials may eventually mine these samples for personal details or make them available for medical research without consent.
New genetic technologies are opening up possibilities that did not arise when the samples were first collected. For instance, a technique called familial searching can match DNA from the crime to someone in the database who is not a suspect but possibly a close relative of one—the database hit would be a near but not identical match to the DNA at the crime scene. The police would then have a whole new set of potential leads who would come under scrutiny as possible perps.
Although this process may nab criminals who would otherwise elude capture, it may also ensnare the innocent. Most of the possible leads produced by searches in partial database matches will have done nothing wrong. These persons of interest are likely to be concentrated in minority communities whose denizens represent a disproportionate fraction of the databases. Moreover, the seeming infallibility of DNA may prompt police to place too much reliance on familial search methods instead of considering nongenetic evidence that may steer an investigation toward other leads, notes New York University School of Law professor Erin Murphy.
The need is acute for legislative safeguards that protect privacy while also allowing police to solve crimes using these powerful tools. DNA samples should not be taken until a suspect is convicted, and even then the original DNA sample should be destroyed once the relevant markers are in the computer to guard against any future temptation to delve into someone’s private life. Finally, familial searches should be undertaken only as a last resort after other investigative leads have been tried—an approach that California has adopted and that other states should follow.
DNA is not just a technological progression from fingerprinting. It is qualitatively different. As such, it needs to be treated as more than a mere formality of a police booking procedure.
This article was originally published with the title Stop the Genetic Dragnet.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentThe suggestion of the editors in "Stop the Genetic Dragnet" that "DNA samples should not be taken until a suspect is convicted" creates what should be an obvious catch-22, in that it would prevent using DNA testing as a method of obtaining conviction or proving innocence, which I believe is the whole point of doing DNA testing in a criminal investigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one welcome the enhancement of investigative process to identify suspects. Some persons find reasons to inhibit the ability of our law enforcement officials to discover facts pertinent to a crime and those same persons may discover a different perspective if they, or a loved one were the victim of a crime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSighting innuendo as reasoning for not doing something logic would dictate would be and effective tool, is irrational.
Erring on the side of caution, keeping collected data, may impede a suspect for a relatively short time. This does not compare with allowing someone to continue to jeopardize others and risking collateral damage to the public at large.
Glad a thread has already started -- I was going to comment on the same sentence. I'm hoping that it's just a typo, that the author meant "charged" and not "convicted." I'm all for not allowing DNA stockpiling to escalate, but we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I can see, the author(s) only got one thing right in this whole article: something needs to be done to prevent the left-over sample material from being misused. However, that can be remedied without hampering law enforcement simply by crafting laws that specifically state what such samples can and cannot be used for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, the only way DNA fingerprinting is "qualitatively different" from tradional fingerprinting is in its greater value in locating and convicting criminals.
So the gov sells your dna to a private firm who in turn runs it through the lab and finds out you're going to be short lived because of your genetic makeup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't employers and insurance companies love to have this information?
I wonder if I can get your dna through the freedom of information act.
That's not true, if they didn't collect DNA until after conviction as a standard practice, it wouldn't prevent law enforcement and courts from getting a court ordered warrant to get a suspects genetic information before conviction, however it would keep innocent individuals safe from their DNA's information being abused.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't seem unreasonable at all to want law enforcement to have to go to a court and get a judge to order a warrant for a suspects genetic information instead of law enforcement being able to take it basically whenever they want. Just my opinion though...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sky is not falling...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as a query, how big a jump in technology is it, once they have your sample, to manufacture more of it and put it at a crime? You know, to close cases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnice catch...didn't see that one...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading the article and the comments, I was seesawing between the pros and cons...still not sure but now I can see how it could be abused...
DNA profiles should be taken from everyone
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as every child should be fingerprinted so they can be identified
The identity of any person of interest should be available
There are many reasons every persons profile should be available.
For health reasons
For reproductive defect detection
Just as no one can camaflage themselves.
Sociaty has the right to know who you are.
Like a gun can be planted and a finger print can be copied and like we follow unil a cigaret but or a soda bottle can be found.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make a good point.
Sneak a piece of skin when you shake a hand, and test it
Just lie where you got it
There are easier ways to frame someone, and much cheaper
The easy defense there is to point out that if you were there the day before you may have left some DNA about the place. DNA in and of itself isn't enough to remove reasonable doubt just as finger prints aren't. I think everyone should be required to give a DNA sample at birth. This could be used for law enforcement as well as health intervention. As American History of the last couple of decades has shown, corrupted cops and prosecutors have a fairly easy time fabricating evidence or suppressing real proof of innocence. DNA doesn't change that in any meaningful way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. I'm always wondering why planting "evidence" is rarely discussed in articles about DNA and the police. Just because someone's DNA is at a crime scene doesn't mean the person was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just another consequence of big government. Politicians want power of the general population and DNA database stockpiling is is a powerful tool that is easily misused. For example, DNA not only provides identification of the individual but also a genetic history and a list of potential physical and psychological disorders. At first this may sound like a good idea but but movies and TV programs such as "Minority Report" and "Person of Interest" quickly move from science fiction to reality. It sounds like a good idea at first blush but we must not lose sight of the cost to personal liberty and privacy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, the author of this opinion piece (and others of similar opinion) find it difficult to argue against use of DNA in solving crimes, so try to sidestep by tossing out the possibility that the sample might be used for horrible things like disease research, or maybe even determining the appearance of the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne might reasonably hold that disease research might be a good thing, or that perhaps the appearance of the subject could be discovered by visual means during his initial arrest.
This article is an excellent example of a very common, yet fallacious line of reasoning widely used to criticize social or governmental polices or procedures. The reasoning runs this way: If such-and-such a thing is done, the results could be abused, therefore such-and-such a thing should not be allowed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLadies and gentleman, think about this for a moment. Is there anything that can be done, that produces a practical result, such that the result cannot be abused? No. The mere possibility of a negative effect or outcome exists for every possible action. Don't inhale! You might inhale something that might be bad for you! Don't exhale! You might exhale something that might be bad for someone else! Never mind that inhaling and exhaling provide you with the oxygen you need to live.
There are very positive, practical benefits to society the are the result of DNA collection. Those benefits exist and are demonstrable in the real world at the present time. DNA has been used to prove that dozens of people were convicted of crimes they did not commit. DNA has been used to establish the guilt of far more people who did commit crimes. Shutting down DNA collection wholesale, on the mere basis that DNA can be misused, without any evidence that DNA is in fact being misused, is a perfect example of the fallacious thinking outlined above. Doing so would shut down the benefits mentioned above even though no misuse has yet occurred.
If we fear that DNA may be misused, we should direct our attention to establishing laws and regulations designed effectively to prevent the misuse we fear, and follow up those measure by deploying the necessary resources to ensure they are obeyed. Avoiding hypothetical abuse by shutting down actual benefits is fallacious thinking at its very worst.
Ironically, I have just released an e book (fiction) about the next potential step; in 2044, to combat crime, the UK government collects mandatory DNA from the populace creating a national database (NDNAD) of 70 million samples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough, written as a thriller, it deals with some of the issues that are mentioned in your excellent artcicle.
Here is the link for anyone interested. Thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/Strands-Baxter-Morgan-Mystery-ebook/dp/B006HIQX1Y
Re: The above fiction title concerning DNA profiling. Sorry, I forgot to write the title... It is called:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTen Strands by John Kemp (available now in e book or paperback from February, 2012).
Thank you.
Note: Ten strands of DNA "markers" are currently used in the UK as opposed to 13 in the USA. Hence the title.
I complete agree with poihths's point. In addition, we don't accuse police of illegal search and seizure for running the license plate or driver's license number of person pulled over during a routine traffic stop. The results of these simple searches turn up people with outstanding warrants, who would have otherwise continued to evade arrest. The same applies for DNA. Although a person may be arrested for something as simple as protesting in San Francisco, they may be the match of an unknown serial rapist on the East Coast. This is a far too useful tool to be shutdown by those who either have or worry about the possibility of one day having a skeleton in their own closet that they don't want revealed because they were arrested over a minor violation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that many of the comments here come from a place of fear. I am also afraid -- but for a different reason. Collecting DNA samples from (suspected) "criminals" is just the beginning....the worst is yet to come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that many of the comments here come from a place of fear. I am also afraid -- but for a different reason. Collecting DNA samples from (suspected) "criminals" is just the beginning....the worst is yet to come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorth saying twice, I guess. (It was an accident.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are worried about personal info being shared, apparently no one is aware of why there is a huge push to electronic medical records. All this stuff is already being shared (employers, health insurance companies, soon life insurance companies, govt in charge of your govt sponsored health insurance) and all the genetic testing which will shortly be standards of care will also be available. This (criminal DNA testing) won't come close to being the reason your privacy is violated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this