Unless you live under a rock or don’t watch TV, you’re probably familiar with the mugshot and fingerprinting steps of the reservation process. Few people are aware of the more recent addition: the mouth swab.
Friday, Herbert Stanback Pleaded guilty Investigator into the hit-and-run accident that killed Ruth Buchanan 32 years ago. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department DNA collected from a joint found in the getaway vehicle was run through the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) to identify Stanback. The FBI explains CODIS is a tool that “allows federal, state, and local forensic laboratories to electronically exchange and compare DNA profiles to link serial violent crimes together and to known offenders.”
The term “known criminal” can be a bit misleading. DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005 Need every An adult arrested for a federal crime (but not convicted) provided a DNA sample. Stanback’s genetic profile was previously provided for comparison. be imprisoned for theft He was recorded as a habitual offender in 2004 and his DNA was registered in the National DNA Index System (NDIS), the national component of CODIS.
It is difficult to argue against requiring convicted criminals to give up identifying genetic information. A convicted criminal has already lost certain privacy and freedoms. However, a person who is simply accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Entering DNA into a federal database for comparison with crime scene samples challenges this presumption of innocence.
The Supreme Court disagrees. In 2013, the court ruled: Maryland vs King The fact that collecting DNA at the time of arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since then, warrantless DNA collection and comparison has become so widespread that civil liberties groups (e.g., American Civil Liberties Union.
According to data According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 states do not collect DNA upon arrest. Of the remaining 30 states that collect DNA, most limit the collection to felony arrests, while eight also include certain misdemeanors. Even in felony arrests, the relevance of DNA collection can vary widely. It is not justifiable to compare DNA from a marijuana trafficking arrest to a sample from a serial murder scene.
Unlike fingerprints and photographs, “genetic information is generally considered particularly sensitive data because it cannot be changed.” Jennifer HuddlestonSenior Research Fellow for Technology Policy at the Cato Institute. Given the sensitivity and immutability of DNA, Huddleston notes that it is important to ask, “Are there adequate cybersecurity precautions in place to protect this information from hackers or other malicious actors?”
that DNA Definition Project To downplay these privacy concerns, CODIS profiles contain “only 20 of the more than 3 billion base pairs, or markers, of the human genome” and “provide no value for disease associations, genetic predispositions, or physical characteristics.” Furthermore, Codys Only DNA profiles are stored, and “no names or other personal identifiers of offenders, arrestees, or detainees” are stored, so even if all data is compromised, the potential for medical and demographic discrimination is minimized.
Patrick EddingtonEddington, a senior fellow for homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, disagrees with the DNA Justice Project’s assessment. “The government should not be allowed to collect and permanently store sensitive, unique biological or biometric data on citizens who have not committed a crime,” Eddington said. “Allowing this to happen not only opens up the government to misuse the data, it also creates a digital ‘honeypot’ for hackers to target and steal identities.”
Solving cold cases is commendable. But collecting, comparing, and storing the DNA of a simple suspect is questionable at best and unconstitutional at worst.
