31. Governor Mark Sanford, South Carolina, letter to Robert W. Harrell Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives, South Carolina, June 18, 2007.
32. Kevin Johnson, “DNA Not Kept in Half of States,” USA Today, August 5, 2008.
33. Betty Layne DesPortes, Richmond, VA, lawyer with Benjamin and Des-Portes, P.C., personal communication with Sheldon Krimsky, July 27, 2009.
34. Maria Gold, “Letters to Inform 400 Felons of DNA Evidence Retesting,” Washington Post, August 7, 2008, B04.
35. Maria Gold, “Va. DNA Project Is in Uncharted Territory,” Washington Post, August 17, 2008, C01.
3. Community DNA Dragnets
1. Joseph Wambaugh, The Blooding (New York: Morrow, 1989), 168.
2. Aaron B. Chapin, “Arresting DNA: Privacy Expectations of Free Citizens Versus Post-convicted Persons and the Unconstitutionality of DNA Dragnets,” Minnesota Law Review 89 (June 2005): 1842–1875, quotation at 1867.
3. Amanda McElfresh, “Man Sues to Retrieve DNA Sample,” Daily Reveille (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University), August 24, 2003, http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2003/08/24/news/man_sues.To.Retrieve.DNA.Sample-2046570.shtml (accessed October 30, 2007).
4. Kevin Bersett, “Victims Challenge Police Use of Controversial DNA Dragnet,” New Standard (Syracuse, NY), September 27, 2004.
5. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, a dragnet is “a network of measures for apprehension (as of criminals)”; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragnet (accessed December 10, 2008).
6. Samuel Walker, “Police DNA ‘Sweeps’ Extremely Unproductive” (report by the Police Professional Initiative, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska, Omaha, September 2004).
7. Wambaugh, Blooding.
8. Mark A. Rothstein and Meghan K. Talbott, “The Expanding Use of DNA in Law Enforcement: What Role for Privacy?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (Summer 2006): 153–162, reported that the German DNA dragnet collected samples from 16,400 men. See page 156. Science reported that 18,000 men were tested. See “Gene Hunt,” Science 313, no. 5789 (August 18, 2006): 897.
9. “Random Samples,” Science 313, no. 5789 (August 18, 2006): 897.
10. A. R. T. Bates, M. Hequet, and R. Laney, “The DNA Dragnet,” Time (January 24, 2005), 39–40.
11. Carole McCartney, Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk (Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, 2006), 5.
12. Chapin, “Arresting DNA,” 1858.
13. Adam M. Gershowitz, “The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment,” UCLA Law Review 56 (October 2008): 27–58, quotation at 27.
14. Glynn Wilson, “In Louisiana, Debate Over a DNA Dragnet,” Christian Science Monitor, February 21, 2003.
15. Kohler v. Englade, 470 F. 3d 1104, No. 05-30541, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, November 21, 2006.
16. Rosemary Roberts, “Open Your Mouth for a DNA Swab,” News and Record (Greensboro, NC), January 14, 2005.
17. Jeffrey S. Grand, “The Blooding of America: Privacy and the DNA Dragnet,” Yeshiva University Cardozo Law Review 23 (2002): 2277–2323, quotation at 2307.
18. Ibid., quotation at 2317.
19. Peter J. Neufeld, member, New York State’s Forensic Science Review Board, testimony at the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, July 17, 2003, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju88394.000/hju88394_0f.htm (accessed March 25, 2010).
20. Associated Press, “DNA Dragnet Raises Concern,” St. Petersburg Times, June 17, 2003.
21. Kathy Marks, “Christmas Day Killer Trapped by DNA Test,” Independent (London), February 10, 1998.
22. Stephen Wright, “Trapped by a DNA Dragnet,” Daily Mail, February 10, 1998.
23. Sepideh Esmaili, “Searching for a Needle in a Haystack: The Constitutionality of Police DNA Dragnets,” Kent Law Review 82 (2007): 495–523, quotation at 520.
24. Ibid., 522.
25. Rothstein and Talbott, “The Expanding Use of DNA in Law Enforcement,” 156.
26. Wilson, “In Louisiana, Debate Over a DNA Dragnet.”
27. Marc Rotenberg, Marcia Hoffman, and Melissa Ngo, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Brief of Amicus Curiae, Shannon Kohler v. Pat Englade, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 3:03-cv-00857-JJB-CN (2005), 6–7.
28. Maria Gold, “Police in Charlottesville Suspend ‘DNA Dragnet,’” Washington Post, April 15, 2004, B01.
29. Lorraine M. Blackwell, “Virginia U. Suspends DNA Dragnet Locating Serial Rapist,” The Daily Texan, May 4, 2004.
30. Esmaili, “Searching for a Needle in a Haystack,” 516.
31. Grand, “Blooding of America,” quoted at 2301.
32. Walker, “Police DNA ‘Sweeps’ Extremely Unproductive.”
33. Ibid., 3. As of 2008 there were at least 20 DNA dragnets conducted throughout the United States since 1990. “Kohler v. Englade: The Unsuccessful Use of DNA Dragnets to Fight Crime,” http://epic.org/privacy/kohler (accessed March 26, 2010).
34. Walker, “Police DNA ‘Sweeps’ Extremely Unproductive,” 14–15.
35. Ibid., 4.
36. Chapin, “Arresting DNA,” 1863.
37. Frederick R. Bieber and David Lazer, “DNA Sweep Must Be Accompanied by Informed Consent,” Provincetown Banner, January 20, 2005.
38. Pam Belluck, “Slow DNA Trail Leads to Suspect in Cape Cod Case,” New York Times, April 16, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/national/16arrest.htm?ref=christa_warthington (accessed August 13, 2010).
39. Rotenberg, Hoffman, and Ngo, Brief of Amicus Curiae.
40. Samuel Walker and Michael Harrington, “Police DNA ‘Sweeps’: A Proposed Model Policy on Police Requests for DNA Samples,” Police Professionalism Initiative, University of Nebraska at Omaha, July 2005, http://www.unomaha.edu/criminaljustice/PDF/dnamodelpolicyfinal.pdf, 6 (accessed March 26, 2010).
41. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Forensic Use of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, September 2007), 56, http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/The_forensic_use_of_bioinformation_-_ethical_issues.pdf (accessed March 26, 2010).
42. Rotenberg, Hoffman, and Ngo, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 7.
43. Chapin, “Arresting DNA,” 1859, quoting Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
4. Familial DNA Searches
1. Daniel J. Grimm, “The Demographics of Genetic Surveillance: Familial DNA Testing and the Hispanic Community,” Columbia Law Review 107 (June 2007): 1164–1194, quotation at 1164.
2. Tony Lake, chief constable, Lincolnshire Police, presentation before the FBI Symposium on Familial Searching and Genetic Privacy, Arlington, VA, March 17–18, 2008.
3. “Brick Thrower Jailed Over Death,” BBC News, April 19, 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3639057.stm (accessed April 12, 2010).
4. Forensic Science Service, “Case Files: Craig Harman—Family DNA Link Offers Crime Breakthrough,” 2008, http://www.forensic.gov.uk/html/media/case-studies/f-39.html (accessed April 12, 2010).
5. Of course, it is also possible that “tipping off” a relative may warn the suspect that the police are onto him or her, which happened in the “stiletto shoe case” (see box 4.1).
6. European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), ENFSI DNA Working Group, “DNA-Database Management Review and Recommendations,” April 2009, http://www.enfsi.eu/page.php?uid=98 (accessed April 12, 2010).
7. See Frederick R. Bieber, “Science and Technology of Forensic DNA Profiling: Current Use and Future Directions,” in DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. David Lazer (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), 23–62. See also Ben Mitchell, “Police Warning to Criminals Over DNA Breakthrough,” Scotsman, November 19, 2004.
8. Federal Bureau of Investigation, CODIS Bulletin, “Interim Plan for the Release of Information in the Event of a Partial Match at NDIS,” July 20, 2006, http://www.bioforensics.com/conference08/Familial_Searches/CODIS
_Bulletin.pdf (accessed April 12, 2010).
9. Henry T. Greely, Daniel P. Riordan, Nanibaa’ A. Garrison, and Joanna L. Mountain, “Family Ties: The Use of DNA Offender Databases to Catch Offenders’ Kin,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 248–262.
10. Ibid., 252.
11. Michael Chamberlain, deputy attorney general, DNA Legal Unit, California Department of Justice, Memorandum to Attorney General Jerry Brown, California, June 6, 2007, 3.
12. Interpol DNA Unit, Global DNA Databank Inquiry: Results and Analysis 2002, International Criminal Police Organization (I.C.P.O.), Interpol, General Secretariat, 2003, http://www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/dna/inquiry/default.asp (accessed August 8, 2008).
13. Canada, National DNA Data Bank, “Technology” (last updated April 23, 2007), http://www.nddb-bndg.org/techno_e.htm (accessed September 8, 2008).
14. Kristen Lewis, University of Washington, Department of Biostatistics, statement at American Association of Forensic Science Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, February 18–23, 2008.
15. Ted Staples, Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) Ad Hoc Group on Partial Matches, presentation before the FBI Symposium on Familial Searching and Genetic Privacy, Arlington, VA, March 17–18, 2008. Committee recommendations presented available at Forensic Science Communications, F.B.I., SWGDAM Recommendations to the FBI Director on the “Interim Plan for the Release of Information in the Event of a ‘Partial Match’ at NDIS,” vol. 11, no. 4, October 2009, http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/standard_guidlines/swgdam.html (accessed April 17, 2010).
16. Greely et al., “Family Ties,” 252.
17. George Carmody, professor of biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, statement at New York State Forensic Science Commission hearing, January 2008.
18. Greely et al., “Family Ties,” 253.
19. David R. Paoletti, Travis E. Doom, Michael L. Raymer, and Dan E. Krane, “Assessing the Implications for Close Relatives in the Event of Similar but Nonmatching DNA Profiles,” Jurimetrics 46 (Winter 2006): 161–175.
20. Bruce Weir, “DNA Evidence: Inferring Identity,” in Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, Gerry Melino, editor-in-chief, Volume on Genetics and Molecular Biology (Chichester, UK: John Wiley, 2006), 2, http://www.els.net, doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0005452 (accessed May 3, 2010).
21. For familial searches the likelihood ratio is the chance that a sibling (relative) has a matching profile divided by the chance that a randomly chosen unrelated person has a matching profile.
22. Charles Brenner, consultant in forensic mathematics, Oakland, CA, presentation before the New York State Forensic Science Commission, January 2008.
23. Frederick R. Bieber, Charles H. Brenner, and David Lazer, supporting online material for “Finding Criminals Through DNA of Their Relatives,” Science 312 (June 2, 2006): 1315–1316 (originally published in Science Express on May 11, 2006) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;1122655/DC1 (accessed April 15, 2010).
24. Frederick R. Bieber, Charles H. Brenner, and David Lazer, “Finding Criminals Through DNA of Their Relatives,” Science 312 (June 2, 2006): 1315–1316, quotation at 1315.
25. George Carmody, professor of biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, statement at New York State Forensic Science Commission hearing, January 2008.
26. Kristen E. Lewis, Bruce S. Weir, and Mary-Claire King, “Genomic Approaches to the Identification of Individuals Through Familial Database Searches” (paper presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 60th Anniversary Scientific Meeting, Washington, DC, February 20–23, 2008).
27. Frederick Bieber and David Lazer, “Guilt by Association,” New Scientist 184, no. 2470 (October 23, 2004), http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424703.000-guilt-by-association.html (accessed April 15, 2010).
28. Scott Michels, “Using a Relative’s DNA to Catch Criminals,” U.S. News and World Report (August 3, 2006), http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060803/3data.htm (accessed April 15, 2010).
29. Federal Bureau of Investigation, CODIS Bulletin, “Interim Plan.”
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Thomas Callaghan, presentation at the 13th National CODIS Conference, CODIS Unit, Burlingame, CA, October 29–30, 2007.
33. Tom Callaghan, chief, CODIS Unit, FBI, presentation before the FBI Symposium on Familial Searching and Genetic Privacy, Arlington, VA, March 17–18, 2008.
34. DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Title XXI, Subtitle C of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, Public Law 103-322), 108 Stat. 1796.
35. Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), statement in support of the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 during the Senate floor debate, December 6, 2000.
36. National Research Council, DNA Technology in Forensic Science (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992), 86–87.
37. U.S.C. 552a(e)(4): “Each agency that maintains a system of records shall (4) . . . publish in the Federal Register upon establishment or revision a notice of the existence and character of the system of records, which notice shall include A) the name and location of the system; B) the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system; C) the categories of records maintained in the system; D) each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use; E) the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records.”
38. Department of Justice, “Privacy Act of 1974: New System of Records,” Federal Register 61, no. 139 (July 18, 1996): 37497 (emphasis added).
39. In response to a question raised by Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, whether states had authority to do full-scale familial searching, only 3–4 hands were raised out of approximately 150 individuals in the room.
40. Tom Callaghan, quoted in Summary Report of the Virginia Scientific Advisory Committee’s Subcommittee on Familial Searches, August 2007.
41. Molly McDonough, “Familial DNA Searches Are Creating Genetic Informants,” ABA Journal, April 21, 2008, http://www.ABAJournal.com/mobile/article/familial_DNA_searches_are_creating_genetic_informants (accessed July 30, 2010).
42. Richard Willing, “DNA ‘Near Matches’ Spur Privacy Fight,” USA Today, August 3, 2007, 3A.
43. Rockne Harmon, comment in response to question posed by Louisiana State Crime Lab director, FBI Symposium on Familial Searching and Genetic Privacy, Arlington, VA, March 17–18, 2008.
44. California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, “DNA Partial Match (Crime Scene DNA Profile to Offender) Policy,” April 24, 2008.
45. Code of Massachusetts, Regulations, CMR Title 515 2.14, “Mutual Exchange, Use and Storage of DNA Records” (emphasis added).
46. Richard Pinchin, North American Operations Manager, Forensic Science Service, U.K., presentation before the New York State Forensic Science Commission hearing, January 2008. See also Robin Williams, “Making Do with Partial Matches: DNA Intelligence and Criminal Investigations in the United Kingdom” (presentation at DNA Fingerprinting and Civil Liberties: Workshop #2, American Society for Law, Medicine and Ethics, September 17–18, 2004); and Andrew Barrow, “Sex Attacker Snared by Family DNA,” Press Association Limited, September 23, 2005.
47. Pinchin, presentation before the New York State Forensic Science Commission hearing.
48. Ibid. Mitch Morrissey, the district attorney in Denver, has also claimed that his pilot familial searching program has identified three cases in which there was a 90 percent chance of identifying a sibling link between crime-scene evidence and an individual in the Denver database. See Jeffrey Rosen, “Genetic Surveillance for All,” Slate (March 17, 2009), http://www.slate.com/id/2213958/pagenum/all/ (accessed April 12, 2010).
49. Lewis et al., “Genomic Approaches to the Identification of Individuals.”
50. Hugh Whittall, director, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, presentation before the
FBI Symposium on Familial Searching and Genetic Privacy, Arlington, VA, March 17–18, 2008.
51. Robin Williams and Paul Johnson, “Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Intrusiveness: Issues in the Developing Uses of DNA Profiling in Support of Criminal Investigations,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33, no. 3 (2005): 545–558, quotation at 555.
52. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Forensic Use of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, September 2007), 80, http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/The_forensic_use_of_bioinformation_-_ethical_issues.pdf (accessed May 23, 2010).
53. Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law, George Washington University, presentation before the FBI Symposium on Familial Searching and Genetic Privacy, Arlington, VA, March 17–18, 2008.
54. U.S. Const., Art. III, 3, Cl. 2.
55. Chamberlain, Memorandum to Brown, 5.
56. Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal. 4th (1994).
57. Bieber et al., “Finding Criminals Through DNA of Their Relatives,” 1316.
58. New York Civil Rights Law, Section 79-1, “Confidentiality of Records of Genetic Tests.”
59. Sonia Suter, professor of law, George Washington University, presentation before the FBI Symposium on Familial Searching and Genetic Privacy, Arlington, VA, March 17–18, 2008.
60. Erica Haimes, “Social and Ethical Issues in the Use of Familial Searching in Forensic Investigations: Insight from Family and Kinship Studies,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (Summer 2006): 263–276, quotation at 271.
61. Bieber quoted in Rick Weiss, “Vast DNA Bank Pits Policing vs. Privacy,” Washington Post, June 3, 2006, A1.
62. Daniel J. Grimm, “The Demographics of Genetic Surveillance: Familial DNA Testing and the Hispanic Community,” Columbia Law Review 107 (June 2007): 1164–1194, quotation at 1164.
Genetic Justice Page 42
