Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T21:26:08.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should Biological Evidence or DNA Be Retained by Forensic Science Laboratories after Profiling? No, except under Narrow Legislatively-Stipulated Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

R. E. Gaensslen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

DNA profiling and databasing have become commonplace in criminal investigation and prosecution. There is a body of both state and federal legislation enabling the establishment and operation of profile databases for law enforcement purposes. Most legislation is specific as to who (or what evidence) may be profiled for inclusion in a database. The majority of state laws permit DNA profile databasing of offenders convicted of certain defined crimes, of missing persons and their relatives, and of DNA profiles from criminal-case evidence where the depositor is unknown. More recently, a few states have acted to permit databasing profiles of suspects of certain types of crimes, and there appears to be a trend toward wider adoption of this practice. The legislation adopted or proposed thus far defines whose DNA profiles can be databased, and under what circumstances. Less attention has been given to the matter of specimen retention following profiling and databasing.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , Summer 2006 , pp. 375 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Taylor, B., “Storing DNA Samples of Non-convicted Persons & the Debate over DNA Database Expansion,” T. M. Cooley Law Review 20 (2001): 509–545, at 513, n. 22; P. L. 103–322, subtitle C, Section 210304, the DNA Identification Act of 1994, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (2005), authorized the FBI to create an index (database) of DNA identification records from convicted offenders, crime scene evidence, and unidentified human remains. This index is called “CODIS,” for Combined DNA Indexing System. CODIS consists of local (LDIS), state (SDIS) and national (NDIS) databases.Google Scholar
“Specimen” in this paper means a biological specimen, such as a blood stain or a buccal swab from which a DNA specimen can be prepared, or the DNA specimen itself.Google Scholar
“Phenotype” in a broad sense refers to a measurable or observable characteristic that is the result of gene expression. Physical traits such as blue eyes, or chronic health conditions such as diabetes, are examples of phenotypes.Google Scholar
DNA data banks authorized and maintained by localities, states, and the FBI for law enforcement purposes contain, for each individual, his/her genotype at thirteen regions (loci) of DNA called the “CODIS core loci.” A “genotype” is a person's type at one specific DNA region (locus). A “profile” is a list of a person's genotypes at a series of loci. These thirteen loci consist of DNA variation in a form called “variable numbers of tandem repeats” or VNTR. As far as anyone knows, these VNTRs are useful only for identifying a person as that person (like a classical fingerprint). The thirteen-locus profiles that are in the databanks cannot themselves be used to extract additional information about a person. Additional information about a person might be extracted from the DNA specimen, however. In general, and for purposes of this discussion, the distinction between a specimen and a DNA profile is important. DNA profiles (essentially a series of numbers useful only for identification) are databanked. Specimens may be retained, but are not, strictly speaking, databanked.Google Scholar
The International HapMap Consortium, “A Haplotype Map of the Human Genome,” Nature 437, no. 7063 (2005): 1299–1320; and see Goldstein, D. B. and Cavalleri, G. L., Commentary, “Understanding Human Diversity,” Nature 437, no. 7063 (2005): 1241–2; Kotulak, R., “Finding Root of Disease in Reach,” Chicago Tribune, October 27, 2005; Associated Press, “Finding Genes for Common Illnesses,” Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2005.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Fodor, S. A., “Massively Parallel Genomics,” Science 277 (1997): 393–395; Debouck, C. and Goodfellow, P. N., “DNA Micro-arrays in Drug Discovery and Development,” Nature Genetics 21, Supplement 1 (1999): 48–50; DeRisi, J. L. and Iyer, V. R., “Genomics and Array Technology,” Current Opinions in Oncology 11, no. 1 (1999): 76–9; DeRisi, J. L. Iyer, V. R. and Brown, P. O., “Exploring the Metabolic and Genetic Control of Gene Expression on a Genomic Scale,” Science 278 (1997): 680; Lye, B., “High-tech Keys to Future Cures – Microarray Chips will Point the Way to Crucial Treatment,” Chicago Tribune, October 9, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See The Encode Project: Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, National Human Genome Institute, National Institutes of Health, at <http://www.genome.gov/10005107> (last visited February 14, 2006).+(last+visited+February+14,+2006).>Google Scholar
Kotkin, M. and Ballantyne, J., “Forensic Biometrics: The Determination of Individual Physical Characteristics by DNA Typing,” Proc. 54th Meeting, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February, 2002, Atlanta GA, Abstract B80.Google Scholar
Axelrad, S., “Survey of State DNA Database Statutes” (as of July 1, 2005) at <http://www.aslme.org/> (last visited February 14, 2006).+(last+visited+February+14,+2006).>Google Scholar
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 54–102i; Ga. Code Ann. 24-4-62; Va. Code Ann. 19.2–310.4.Google Scholar
Axelrod, S., supra note 9.Google Scholar
Id. This tally does not include New Hampshire. The meaning of that statute was not sufficiently clear to include in either category.Google Scholar
Alaska, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin. Alaska Stat. § 44.41.035; Cal. Penal Code § 297; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 943.325; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.176; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29–4105; N.Y. Exec. Law § 995–c; Vt. Stat. Ann. 20 §§ 1938, 1940; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 165.77Google Scholar
Wisconsin and Vermont. Statutes, supra note 13; 42 U.S.C. 14132 (a)(1)(C). (“[S]amples that are voluntarily submitted solely for elimination purposes shall not be included in the National DNA Index System.”)Google Scholar
Cal. Penal Code §297 (effective January, 2009); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 411.146, 411.149, 411.1471; Va. Code Ann. § 19.2–310.2:1; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:609.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. 14132 (a) (2005).Google Scholar
Title X of P.L. 109–162 (2006), codified at various sections of 42 U.S.C. 14132 et seq.Google Scholar
“Safir wants DNA Samples from all NYC Arrests,” Associated Press, December 15, 1998; Chapman, S., “Fighting Crime with DNA,” Chicago Tribune, October 9, 2005.Google Scholar
See supra note 17.Google Scholar
See supra note 16.Google Scholar
Hibbert, M., “DNA Databanks: Law Enforcement's Greatest Surveillance Tool?” Wake Forest Law Review 34 (1999): 767–825; ACLU Letter to Senators of the Judiciary Committee Expressing Concerns about S. 1700, the “Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003” (which became P.L. 108–405) June 3, 2004; Yohnka, E. C., “Collection of DNA in Crimes Must Have Limits,” Letter to Editor, Chicago Tribune, October 19, 2005; see also Simoncelli, T. and Steinhardt, B., “California's Proposition 69: Dangerous Precedent for Criminal DNA Databases,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33 (2005): 279–293; Reprinted in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (2006): 199–213.Google Scholar
CNN Report: “Daughter of BTK Suspect Alerted Police. 59-year-old Kansan Accused of Killing 10,” Sunday, February 27, 2005; Barrow, A., “Sex Attacker Caught by ‘Family DNA,’” September 19, 2005, posted on a listserv available at <http://www.dnapolicy.net/> (last visited February 21, 2006).+(last+visited+February+21,+2006).>Google Scholar
See website of the National Conference of State Legislatures, at <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/prt.htm> (last visited February 14, 2006).+(last+visited+February+14,+2006).>Google Scholar
P.L. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1998 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. 164.512(f)(1)(i),(ii).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 164.512(f)(2))(ii).Google Scholar
N.J.S.A. 10:5–44; 16 Del. Laws, c.12 §1221.Google Scholar