The Washington State Legislature is considering a House bill that would make DNA testing mandatory for all persons, juvenile and adult, arrested for a felony or a gross misdemeanor. One of the crimes which will be included for mandatory DNA sampling is shoplifting. This DNA test will be submitted to the Washington State Patrol database and the FBI database. If the person is later found not guilty, charges are dropped, or the conviction is overturned, the DNA sample will be destroyed.
This is one of those bill that really scares me. I don't understand how people can look at this and say that it not an unreasonable search which we are constitutionally protected against. Under the current law, DNA sampling requires a warrant unless the person is actually convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor sexual offense. This new bill would allow the police to take a DNA sample from someone arrested for suspicion of a crime without giving the suspect a day in court. In fact, it would be mandatory for them to do this.
On the surface, this might seem to be no more intrusive than fingerprinting during arrest. This is a quote from the executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs that appears in an article in the Seattle Times:
This is simply not true. As an example, let us say that one of your siblings or cousins was arrested. If they are fingerprinted, those fingerprints belong only to that person. If there is fingerprint evidence somewhere for an unsolved crime, they will have only that individual's fingerprints for comparison.
If a DNA sample is taken from someone that has been arrested and entered into a national database, then that sample may be compared to DNA from a crime scene with an unknown subject. What happens if one of your close relatives is arrested and they have some genetic markers in common with a DNA sample from an unsolved crime scene? If that DNA has genetic markers in common with that unknown DNA sample, then a suspect pool consisting of closely related family members of the same sex can be made. What is to stop the authorities from using this as probable cause for a search of your property or person without showing any other evidence? You could be forced to spend thousands of dollars to defend yourself.
One part of the bill says that the sample will be destroyed if the person is not convicted or if the conviction is overturned. Can we really believe that once a DNA sample is entered into a state or national database, that it will be removed later? I think that is simply not true. If we could trust this sort of information gathering to be handled in accordance with law, there would have been no need for President Bush and our Senators and Representatives to give immunity to telecommunication companies that illegally recorded telephone conversations.
I also have serious reservations about the Washington State Patrol being involved in this process. They have a record of handling and analyzing scientific evidence improperly and then saying later that it doesn't matter.
Several years ago in Montana, a scientist provided erroneous hair-sample analysis that helped convict a man of rape. That man was later exonerated by DNA evidence. This man was also alleged to have provided analytical evidence that resulted in the wrongful conviction of two other Montana men for rape. This scientist later came to work for the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab.
In 2002, an internal audit of 100 cases handled by this scientist revealed errors in 30 of the cases. That is a 30% FAILURE rate. The Washington State Patrol failed to tell the defendants or their attorneys of the flawed test, deciding that they were performed well enough. They decided that the "sloppy work" built around "shortcuts and speed" were not a good enough reason to fire the guy. I guess they don't believe in following proper procedures when performing tests that can destroy a persons life if improperly performed. You can read about this guy and the official WSP response here.
If you read their response, you will probably arrive at the conclusion that they have cleaned house. However, about a year ago, they had to contact 130 people that had been issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol. These citations were based on faulty breathalyzer tests performed on the people driving. The toxicology lab responsible for these mistakes is overseen by the WSP. An internal audit and several independent audits found problems. A panel of judges issued the following statement about the lab:
Well, at least they told the accused people about their lab problems this time, even though some of the people had already served sentences.
The WSP is definitely the wrong organization to be involved in the collecting and cataloging scientific evidence of DNA. Their laboratories and their leadership at the laboratories have not demonstrated that they take their responsibilities seriously.
Bottom line for me is this bill should be shot down. I believe this is a violation of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I also do not have confidence that our government agencies will handle the collected samples properly or legally.
This is one of those bill that really scares me. I don't understand how people can look at this and say that it not an unreasonable search which we are constitutionally protected against. Under the current law, DNA sampling requires a warrant unless the person is actually convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor sexual offense. This new bill would allow the police to take a DNA sample from someone arrested for suspicion of a crime without giving the suspect a day in court. In fact, it would be mandatory for them to do this.
On the surface, this might seem to be no more intrusive than fingerprinting during arrest. This is a quote from the executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs that appears in an article in the Seattle Times:
"It is good technology. It solves crimes," said Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which has long pushed for DNA tests at the time of arrest. "We take fingerprints at the time of arrest, which in many ways is a lot more intrusive."
This is simply not true. As an example, let us say that one of your siblings or cousins was arrested. If they are fingerprinted, those fingerprints belong only to that person. If there is fingerprint evidence somewhere for an unsolved crime, they will have only that individual's fingerprints for comparison.
If a DNA sample is taken from someone that has been arrested and entered into a national database, then that sample may be compared to DNA from a crime scene with an unknown subject. What happens if one of your close relatives is arrested and they have some genetic markers in common with a DNA sample from an unsolved crime scene? If that DNA has genetic markers in common with that unknown DNA sample, then a suspect pool consisting of closely related family members of the same sex can be made. What is to stop the authorities from using this as probable cause for a search of your property or person without showing any other evidence? You could be forced to spend thousands of dollars to defend yourself.
One part of the bill says that the sample will be destroyed if the person is not convicted or if the conviction is overturned. Can we really believe that once a DNA sample is entered into a state or national database, that it will be removed later? I think that is simply not true. If we could trust this sort of information gathering to be handled in accordance with law, there would have been no need for President Bush and our Senators and Representatives to give immunity to telecommunication companies that illegally recorded telephone conversations.
I also have serious reservations about the Washington State Patrol being involved in this process. They have a record of handling and analyzing scientific evidence improperly and then saying later that it doesn't matter.
Several years ago in Montana, a scientist provided erroneous hair-sample analysis that helped convict a man of rape. That man was later exonerated by DNA evidence. This man was also alleged to have provided analytical evidence that resulted in the wrongful conviction of two other Montana men for rape. This scientist later came to work for the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab.
In 2002, an internal audit of 100 cases handled by this scientist revealed errors in 30 of the cases. That is a 30% FAILURE rate. The Washington State Patrol failed to tell the defendants or their attorneys of the flawed test, deciding that they were performed well enough. They decided that the "sloppy work" built around "shortcuts and speed" were not a good enough reason to fire the guy. I guess they don't believe in following proper procedures when performing tests that can destroy a persons life if improperly performed. You can read about this guy and the official WSP response here.
If you read their response, you will probably arrive at the conclusion that they have cleaned house. However, about a year ago, they had to contact 130 people that had been issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol. These citations were based on faulty breathalyzer tests performed on the people driving. The toxicology lab responsible for these mistakes is overseen by the WSP. An internal audit and several independent audits found problems. A panel of judges issued the following statement about the lab:
A panel of King County District Court judges said the lab and its leadership created a "culture of compromise" with so many "ethical lapses, systemic inaccuracy, negligence and violations of scientific principles" that the breath tests should not be used as evidence in pending DUI cases.
Well, at least they told the accused people about their lab problems this time, even though some of the people had already served sentences.
The WSP is definitely the wrong organization to be involved in the collecting and cataloging scientific evidence of DNA. Their laboratories and their leadership at the laboratories have not demonstrated that they take their responsibilities seriously.
Bottom line for me is this bill should be shot down. I believe this is a violation of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I also do not have confidence that our government agencies will handle the collected samples properly or legally.
3 comments:
I'm not current, but don't they DNA all military so that they can identify missing persons? Think WW2 MIAs?
Personally, they should be DNAed for a felony conviction only. I fear Big Brother.
beebs
The State of Washington wants to set a dangerous precedent that chips away at our right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, and our privacy rights. That DNA can identify hereditary conditions, not just in the person whose DNA has been taken, but among the person's relatives. Knowledge of these hereditary conditions -- Alzheimer's, clotting disorders, and on and on and on -- would lead to denial of employment, health insurance, adoption applications, educational opportunities, and more. How long do you think it would take cash-strapped states to start selling this information to insurance companies and other actuaries, databases and the like? They already sell driver's license information. Couple this with the drive to keep everyone's health records in digital format in a national repository, and you have a Big Brother world that turns the US Constitution into just so much yellowed paper.
This kind of stuff worries me. I sincerely hope that this does not get passed into law.
I had my DNA sampled while I was in the navy. I don't remember exactly when it was, but it was after 1996 and prior to a deployment. They stated that it could be used only for identifying remains, but obviously, I have no way of knowing if that is the only thing it was or will be used for.
I also worry about the security of the database that contains the DNA information. The VA and other government agencies don't do a very good job safeguarding information.
How many laptops with sensitive information have gone missing from government facilities? I have heard of a lot of them in the news over the years.
Post a Comment