Image: GETTY IMAGES
In Brief
- Police use of DNA initially posed only a minimal threat to privacy. But collections have expanded to include those arrested for nonviolent crimes and others taken into custody but not yet formally charged with an offense.
- DNA sampling has achieved increasing sophistication as police adopt techniques that search databases for samples that only partially match those from crime scenes, a practice that can bring entire families under the spotlight of a criminal investigation.
- The U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether just being arrested for a crime gives police the authority to demand a genetic sample. A variety of legal measures are needed to protect against potential abuses of gargantuan genetic repositories.
More In This Article
Starting in the mid-1980s, a serial killer murdered at least 10 women in the Los Angeles area. Nicknamed the “Grim Sleeper” because of the long dormancy between his crimes, he eluded capture for nearly 25 years. Then, in 2010, police arrested a man in California for what appeared to be a totally unrelated felony weapons charge. State law required the man to submit a DNA sample for a national DNA database. Typically a DNA database search looks for an exact match between a profile of DNA left at a crime scene by an unknown person and the profile of a known convicted offender. It focuses on 13 places in the genome (the full complement of our DNA) where bits of genetic material vary from person to person. If the crime-scene material differs in any of those 13 places, then the samples do not match, and investigators know that they do not have their suspect.
This time, however, the search was more subtle. It aimed to find DNA profiles that were similar, but not an exact match, to that of the Grim Sleeper. Such an inquiry was possible because in 2008 California became the first state in the nation to formally authorize a new kind of database search. Known as kinship, or familial, matching, this technique looks for partial DNA matches. It is conducted after DNA found at a crime turns up no exact hit. Because related people tend to share more DNA with one another than they do with strangers, a “near miss” in the database may suggest that the search found a person related to the actual perpetrator. Police can then investigate the relatives of the person in the database with the hope of solving the crime.
This article was originally published with the title The Government Wants Your DNA.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentSo we are retaining DNA code for the dregs of society, are we also preserving DNA from the contributors to society?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's the difference rshoff? There are many "contributors" to society that are criminals just as there are good people in the dregs of society. Where do you draw the line? Trailer trash, politicians, oil company executives? Get the picture?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey guys,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to read closer.
They are preserving a DNA profile of 13 areas of the genetic code. No chemicals. And its very rare but 2 people could match, twins or siblings might. These areas might code for nothing at all so this DNA is not telling us anything about the person other then they are different.
I read it as they use 13 areas to search by. It doesn't say anything about not keeping a full DNA profile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rule that any new technology present 3 new questions still holds
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Ingamus You are absolutely right. I am more worried about someone having my SS# and name then I am about having my genome. Would a criminal rather have your credientials or your genome? Besides the police state and big brother are here, and I feel safer for it. I will venture to say that a criminal is more concerned about his genome being in a data base then a non criminal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis seems to be a political article, not a scientific one. If checking DNA samples identifies a rapist from 20 years ago, is that violating someone's civil rights? I don't think so. Why is this different than taking a fingerprint?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently hidden amongst the billions of people wandering around on our planet are the very dangerous such as serial killers et-al. This fact alone should force a world-wide DNA data base to be created for use by those who are responsible to find and identify these creeps irregardless of the concerns of those who scream for privacy/individual rights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only view the preview some maybe some of this is addressed in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. "Familial" DNA testing is not done as part of a regular process. The only state I have heard of it being done was California. Even then, it has to be approved by the Court. The Department has to show that they have exhausted all leads and that familial DNA testing is the only possible option they have left.
2. Also, a DNA "hit" from CODIS doesnt neccesarily lead to an automatic arrest. It is enough cause to get a search warrant to collect someone's DNA. This minimizes any lab mix ups so an innocent person doesnt get arrested on false information.
Just some thoughts;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@rshoff - The falsely accused are not "dregs of society" but I kind of wonder if you are based on your comment.
@ingamas - They keep the DNA profile but only search on 13 locations. This implies that they have substantially more available but ignore it until given cause to pay attention to it. Not quite sure what you mean by "no chemicals". All DNA is chemical in nature and the profile records the chemical composition so that is really not relevant.
@Qiloff - You may feel safer under a police state but so did the Jews that were early members of the NAZI party. When big bro decides that you are a liability for reasons that were previously considered acceptable, then tell us how you feel.
@MostlyRight - DNA does not indicate sociopaths or psychopaths. Therefore you are supporting DNA collection under false assumptions.
Final thought - Everyone should be entitled to a full DNA profile for health reasons. I'm ambivalent on allowing law enforcement to have access to it.
Any police that want to see my DNA are welcome to it. They may bug my phone or put cameras where they want. Thisarticle is just more anti-science hysteria, like anti-GMO nonsense and people that won't vaccinate their kids Puts murderers and rapists in jail and exonerates the innocent, whats not to like?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree with this DNA storage and came here especially to read what people thought about this article, because I think that the ones who don´t have anything to worry about, wouldn´t worry about this DNA data and storage. What´s the problem with that? It seems to me that the ones who are so worried have anything to hide / lurke ! I can´t understand the fuss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jaydoc
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right. This article is definitely a political statement. The inclusion of the Shannon Kohler anecdote is irrelevant. It was misconduct by the police that had nothing to with DNA. The person that leaked Kohler's name should be prosecuted.