Court Explores Constitutionality Of DNA Sampling On Anyone Arrested On Felony Charges
from the is-that-legal? dept
Last month, we discussed the legality of so-called familial searches on gov't DNA databases, especially with states expanding their DNA collection practices. Specifically, familial searches involve noting similarities in DNA found at a crime scene to those in the database. However, without an exact match, police then use the results to look at relatives of whoever was in the database. Where it gets tricky is that many states, such as California, now take DNA from anyone accused of a felony, and keep that DNA -- even if they're never convicted.Two recent stories update this discussion in interesting ways. The first highlights how a recently arrested serial killer was caught using just such a familial search, after the guy's son was arrested on a totally unrelated matter. While it's unquestionably a good thing that a serial killer has been arrested, it still raises questions about the legality of the method by which he was caught. His own DNA was never put into the database (though I'm sure it's there now), but it effectively got there because of his son.
Separately, a lawsuit is making its way through the courts exploring whether or not California's policy of storing the DNA on anyone accused of a felony is legal, and judges appear to be mixed on the matter right now, with some comparing it to taking fingerprints, but others questioning why the data should be stored if the person was never convicted of a crime. As the article notes, this is an issue that will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court eventually.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dna, familial searches, partial match, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In the UK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
I'm not sure that holds water. DNA ostensibly comes from living or once living matter. At its most basic , it's a living extension of a person. Fingerprints are not. Personally, I can't imagine a more perfect violation of our right to secure our persons than this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
"DNA ostensibly comes from living or once living matter. At its most basic, it's a living extension of a person. Fingerprints are not."
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
North Carolina
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: North Carolina
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing a few years of re-education can't fix!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some things just are not meant to be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an [i]alleged[/i] serial killer has been arrested, with the only known evidence against him so far being DNA evidence of questionable trustworthiness.
If he gets convicted by a competent jury, perhaps then you can call it "unquestionably a good thing". Until that day, though, he's innocent until proven guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
be reasonable that if your not convicted IT GOES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
always have vinegar on hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNA In Database
Having heard this case on a local news radio station, the reporter stated that there was DNA collected in the original investigation, but had an unknown donor.It was still logged into database. Once the Son's DNA was collected and logged, it would have found a match to the unknown sample. Thus leading to an arrest and possible/probable conviction.
On the other side, DNA is providing a means to have innocent people who were arrested and convicted, exonerated and released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering the entire Justice Dept. is flawed (OJ Simpson anybody?), I don't mind keeping DNA on record for those who haven't been convicted. Just because you weren't convicted, doesn't mean you're innocent.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we may as well as rip up the constitution and just
/sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNA sampling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please tell this confused AC what's wrong here! So they have a catalog of everyone... great? What's the deal? How can they abuse this?
Honestly just confused here please no flames or snide comments of "Oh well police will be over soon citizen!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, your health insurance just got canceled because the insurance company found out that you have too many markers of expensive-to-treat diseases. You see, they gave many campaign contributions to Congress, who enacted legislation that these poor companies shouldn't have to suffer from covering people with "obviously defective" genes.
I could go on... but hopefully you get the point.
If not, watch Gattaca.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNA at Birth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DNA at Birth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" FAIL
2) If you have nothing to hide, you have everything to fear
3) When governments become paranoid, everybody has something to fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the march of science
The son was arrested for a weapons offence. It was perfectly legitimate to take a dna sample from the son, just like you would take fingerprints, and run it through the system looking for matches. The fact that the program was told to look for close matches rather than perfect matches is not unfair to the son since it has no effect on him and is certainly not unfair to the father (serial killer scum bag that he apparently is).
Wait ten or twenty years and they won't need to do this. The crime scene dna will be used to generate a "photograph" of the perpetrator which can then be run on facial matching through the DMV database.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the march of science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the march of science
I do think it is a good thing but whether I think it is good or not is beside the point since I think it is inevitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]