Should the various police bureaus be allowed to collect DNA samples from people accused of crimes?

If so, should they be able to store them in a database for comparison in future cases?

The same rules as are applied to fingerprints should be applied to DNA.

--PunkDavid

I honestly don't know, so I'm asking.
Fingerprint data DOES get stored and compared for later analysis right?


Let's just say that I get pulled over for speeding and I have an outstanding ticket or two. I get arrested for driving with a suspended license.
Should the police be able to take a DNA sample from me (an arrested person), and store it for later use?
Should the police be able to just scan all existing DNA samples for a match to a crime? It's sort of a backwards way of investigation. They'd have a DNA match, but nothing else and would have to build that part of the case...or would they?

I'm not sure what the rules are aorund the country either, I'm just saying that I think they should use the same standard as they use for fingerprints.

That said, if you get fingerprinted when you get arrested for DUI, then I see no problem with them taking a hair or something else noninvasive to get a DNA sample. I also see no problem with them using the technology availabe to try to match your DNA to older crimes. Keep in mind, they are really only going to have DNA samples on unsolved crimes for serious crimes like rape or murder, so it's not like they're going to bust you for something piddly. They do the same thing with fingerprints to build a case "backwards".

--PunkDavid

So let's say said person with DUI gets a hair sample taken.
Should the PD be able to scan that sample through all DNA samples that they've got in a crime database to see if there's something else the person has done? And should the be able to use that same sample to scan vs. any future DNA evidence taken from crime scenes?

Yes.

--PunkDavid

Aw man, that was way too short after all of that

Well, you summed it up nicely.

--PunkDavid

Oh, nice topic. We just had a HUGE discussion of this in one of my Forensics classes.

Currently, DNA information is stored in quasi-national database called CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). It can be hard to screen samples nationwide though, because there are many different hardware and software systems made to access this database. The FBI is working on getting everyone on the same page. The fingerprint system is called AFIS (Automated fingerprint identification system.)

Most, if not all states and the federal system collect DNA samples from people once they are convicted of a crime and run it through CODIS. CODIS also contains, as you guessed, unknown profiles collected at crime scenes throughout the country. So they attempt to match the two. It is a backwards investigation to a degree.

For people who are only accused of a crime, you have to get a warrant from a judge to collect a DNA sample, unless the suspect volunteers it. Those warrants pretty easy to obtain in this day and age. That sample is then run against suspect DNA from crime scenes. CODIS also allows some agencies to access other databases, for example, the United States Military DNA databases.

Actually, fingerprint evidence is still considered to be better evidence, because it can be individualized in every case. In identical twins, the DNA is the same, but the ridge detail in their fingerprints is different. Also, mitochondrial DNA is only passed through the mother's side, so if the sample collected is mDNA, the chances of proving a match beyond reasonable doubt is reduced. mDNA is often recovered in hair samples which don't contain folicular tags.

The sticking point on this in future generations will come from the folks who want to collect a sample from EVERYBODY, accused of a crime or not. However, it might surprise some people to hear that there is not widespread support for this in the Forensic or Law Enforcement community at this time.

So there's my two cents, send me a pm or an email if you want to know more.

man, that was not just two cents, that was a one hundred dollar bill

in my country, you can't get fingerprints from people accused fo crimes if they are otherwise identified by civil registration (ID or work card). you can't take DNA samples unless there's a court order or the person's consent.

but if you guys watched the X-files, you are aware that everybody in the US (and the world, for that matter) who took a smallpox shot had a DNA sample taken and stored...

Personally I think it's wrong that they store fingerprints at all. If you've never been caught for anything, they have nothing on you, but if you get taken to the station for even traffic violations, suddenly they have the right to keep your information on file indefinitely? Why not just fingerprint people when they hit high school so that they can have a complete set?

if you havent done anything illegal, or dont plan on it, whats the worry?

at the most, you get a clone, big whoop

geez, two Peeps? (just kidding... sorry, couldn't resist... )

youre not the first one to quake at that notion

Here's a libertarian's perspective (5 years old, I know, but the same points are relevant)...

Libertarian Party Press Releases


March 12, 1999

Janet Reno's proposed DNA database is scary news for innocent Americans

WASHINGTON, DC -- A new federal proposal to collect DNA samples from everyone arrested for any crime is a dangerous expansion of government power that blurs the distinction between the innocent and the guilty, the Libertarian Party warned today.

"This proposal would turn America into a nation of suspects," charged David Bergland, the party's national chairman. "Every year, it would subject as many as 6 million legally innocent people to an invasive, unconstitutional search. And it creates the specter of a Brave New World-style DNA database that would allow the government to keep track of your most personal genetic information."

Last week, Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a federal commission to study the legality of collecting DNA samples from every one of the estimated 15.3 million Americans who are arrested annually for any misdemeanor or felony.

The so-called National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence will issue a recommendation by August 1, 1999.

The government already maintains a DNA database of convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters, but this new proposal represents the first time the federal government has sought the power to collect genetic material from people never convicted of any crime.

However, such programs are already moving forward at the state level: Starting in September, everyone arrested in Louisiana will have a DNA sample taken; a similar bill has been filed in North Carolina; and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani wants DNA collected from everyone arrested in New York City.

But Libertarians say such proposals -- whether at the state or federal level -- are unnecessary, unconstitutional, and unfair.

"People who have neither been charged with nor convicted of any crime should have the same rights as any other American -- including the right not to have their genetic information included in some high-tech government database," said Bergland.

"The fact is, out of the 15.3 million people arrested every year, only an estimated 61% are convicted of a crime. This means that 6,000,000 legally innocent people could be treated the same way we now treat murderers, rapists, and child molesters. That's wrong, plain and simple."

Such an invasive search -- which requires police technicians to take blood or saliva -- is also a violation of the Fourth Amendment, argued Bergland.

"DNA is not an external identifier, like a photograph of your face, your height, or your fingerprints. It is deeply personal information that contains data about the very essence of who you are -- including your health and other hereditary factors. The government should not have access to it simply because you were arrested for jaywalking or at a political protest," he said.

Ironically, the proposal comes after the FBI demonstrated that it is unable to keep track of the DNA of criminals who have actually been convicted of violent crimes, he noted.

The current national DNA database contains 38,000 criminal genetic profiles -- but another 250,000 samples must be re-analyzed to meet FBI standards, and another 350,000 to 400,000 samples are backlogged, waiting to be analyzed.

"If the government is really interested in keeping Americans safe, perhaps the FBI should keep track of the evidence it has collected from guilty murderers, rapists, and child molesters -- instead of trying to seize DNA samples from millions of innocent people," said Bergland