Saturday, April 10, 2010

Debating DNA Collection

DNA helps law enforcement investigate and prosecute crime, but the new trend of preconviction DNA collection raises serious Fourth Amendment issues for the criminal justice community.

Policymakers are increasingly coming to grips with legal issues related to taking DNA samples from people who have not been convicted of crimes.

The practice of taking DNA samples from convicted criminals is now largely uncontroversial. The courts have routinely upheld laws that authorize DNA collection from both current and former convicts, and the resulting databases of DNA have become powerful tools to analyze forensic evidence collected from crime scenes. The databases help to clear innocent suspects and redirect law enforcement officials away from unproductive investigations. They also help to convict guilty criminals and clear the wrongfully convicted.

A trend that is causing significant debate is gathering DNA samples from people who are arrested but not convicted. About 20 states and the federal government have passed legislation that requires DNA collection upon arrest. This legislation has raised concerns that crime laboratories may be unable to manage an influx of samples from a new source and that preconviction DNA collection may violate Fourth Amendment privacy guarantees.

Some people worry that collecting DNA creates the potential for abuse of genetic information stored in databases. Others point out that the federal and state privacy laws and penalties that apply to crime labs are stringent — far more stringent than the rules governing private entities that collect blood and saliva for medical or insurance purposes. Additionally, crime labs process only the DNA that applies to human identification. They do not process DNA that identifies predisposition to diseases. Indeed, most crime labs are incapable of doing that kind of DNA processing.

Full article by Sarah B. Berson can be found here.

2 comments:

HI-CALIBER Private Investigations said...

Sarah that was a great article.

Soronel Haetir said...

If taking arrestee fingerprints is legitimate I fail to see how DNA is to be distinguished. And I don't think you're going to get very far arguing that fingerprints shouldn't/can't be collected.