DNA evidence under scrutiny at Arizona Supreme Court

[@oboogie2]

I hate when they describe in these cases that they "would hate to see the man get off on a technicality." Those "technicalities" are our constitutional rights that a lot of people have fought and died to protect.

[@KaiHouston-m6j]

Dang! This is a tough issue. I hope the court rules sooner than later. I will look forward to hearing their reasoning.

[@duotronic6451]

Should have gotten a proper warrent.

[@TheWhale45]

For what LOL> They don't need a warrant to match your Fingerprints with their database.

[@williamzander9708]

@@TheWhale45there talking about blood draw here yes they had his DNA and fingerprints but they didn’t get his blood . A swab is used on DNA from your mouth and fingerprints. A blood draw is a consent .

[@fedbia2003]

Tell me you know nothing without telling me xD

[@TheWhale45]

@@fedbia2003 Go read all about it at your local library. Look up inevitable discovery also.

[@hellstromcarbunkle8857]

Should have the BAC sample destroyed after every alcohol test.

[@Robert_kuchar]

They should of received consent or a warrant to run the dna sample through unsolved crimes

[@aelfheld]

Do they do that for fingerprints?

[@fedbia2003]

LMAO! Consent. So if someone raped your wife you wouldn't want them accessing a databse? No. Too convenient. Loser.

[@williamzander9708]

@@Robert_kuchar no the US Supreme Court said a DNA test is not a unconstitutional violation they use a swab and when checking in the jail they charge you for it.

[@brentfarvors192]

Well, the sample shouldn't have existed for this long. They should only be allowed to retain DNA in conjunction with a plea agreement; Stating a specific time period. Since no SA was involved in his dui, that should have been 6-12 months following his conviction; At which point the sample would be destroyed...SC already ruled these type of dragnet searches were unconstitutional...

[@williamzander9708]

@@brentfarvors192 Yes true but what the defense is telling the state Supreme Court that because the defendant gave his DNA in blood sample whether they destroyed it are not they have proof. The blood sample should of been destroyed. Bet they will rule against him on murder charges fact that cops can use your DNA probably will stand . They always take the states side .

[@janofb]

Not sure why this is any different than fingerprints collected previously.

[@ImListeningToReason]

Meanwhile a young woman was murdered and Justice is not being addressed.

[@ImListeningToReason]

Exactly. Police can just take DNA from a swab today then. This case will move forward, sighs like a conviction is imminent.

[@JohnSmith-yi2uj]

Because the law required that the blood be destroyed. Therefore, it's illegal evidence.

[@tjmayer9103]

​@JohnSmith-yi2uj The blood sample was already in police custody from the suspect's previous DUI. It's not illegal. Just like fingerprints. Your opinion is erroneous.

[@TheMje1963]

@@JohnSmith-yi2uj You can destroy the blood, but the DNA record is still on file and can remain on file for eternity

[@susisorglos6125]

The Question for me is: Was the sample taken legally for a test, that includes a DNA-Test? If you search für DWI, normally there is NO DNA-test includet. Was the sample taken in a crime investigation or in a legal battle that includes this DNA-Test, then the state can use it. If the sample simply was taken for DWI without consent to an DNA-Test, then they can´t use it.

[@crisnmaryfam7344]

So what happens when the police want your Cord Blood that was frozen by your mother for medical purposes... THATS DNA... but they NEED A WARRANT TO GET AT IT, you dont get to say "OHP! WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE LOOK AT THAT HOW WONDERFUL!" NO NO NO NO. That is NOT LEGAL. Nor is this. Not to defend a killer, but WONT BE DEFENDING THE GESTAPO POLICE EITHER. FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE - Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine: A rule under which evidence that is the direct result of illegal conduct on the part of an official is inadmissible in a criminal trial against the victim of the conduct.

[@crisnmaryfam7344]

the sample given by a distant family member who summited their dna to a genealogy website... One made to find your distant relatives and such. So technically no. It was not taken legally. they found a partial match through that and then decided they ALSO had the right to take his personally.

[@TheWhale45]

DWI is a crime.

[@brentfarvors192]

It's irrelevant, since this was a separate crime. At the very least, it's inadmissable since he wasn't properly notified his DNA was going into a database. And, seeing as how it was through coercion, the sample should have been destroyed at the conclusion of his dui sentence...He was no longer under any conditions, meaning a new warrant was necessary to access it...

[@TheWhale45]

@@brentfarvors192 Investigators said they were able to make the connection, in part, by using familial DNA, matching DNA found at the scene with one of Mitcham’s brothers who was already in prison. Scottsdale police then used Ian Mitcham’s DNA sample from a 2015 DUI to connect the DNA at the crime scene to Mitcham. he's screwed. There is no Violation of the 4th amendment.

[@elenak547]

So what is the difference between using the CODIS technology to track down a criminal? They need to give this family justice! I remember this case and my heart goes out to their parents. What if this was their sibling? I'm sure these judges would want justice.

[@KaiHouston-m6j]

A desire for justice, should not trample on basic rights. It is a hard case to decide.

[@crisnmaryfam7344]

CODIS results were all obtianed legally. Using geneology websites to track peoples partial DNA down is NOT legal.. Precedent has been set by many courts already. "This Comment argues that when law enforcement uploads a suspect’s DNA to an open source DNA database, it violates the suspect’s constitutional right to privacy. A suspect retains a privacy interest in some kinds of sensitive information, and by uploading the sample to a website accessible to anyone, law enforcement has violated that privacy interest. This Comment further argues that the right to privacy of the suspect’s family is also violated by law enforcement use of this technique. Because DNA is shared between genetic relatives, law enforcement is also releasing information that implicates the suspect’s genetic relatives any time it uploads a genetic sample to an open source database. Introduction On April 25, 2018, law enforcement arrested Joseph James DeAngelo, a seventy-two-year-old resident of a Sacramento, California suburb, for a string of rapes and murders committed in the 1970s and 1980s.1 The killer had eluded law enforcement for decades and was previously known only as the “Golden State Killer,” the “Original Night Stalker,” and the “East Area Rapist.”2 Shortly after the arrest, details surfaced regarding law enforcement’s method for catching the alleged killer. Law enforcement revealed that it had uploaded the unknown suspect’s DNA to a DNA database called GEDmatch, an open source website that allows users to upload their genetic profiles from consumer genetic testing sites like Ancestry and 23andMe and make the profiles public to other GEDmatch users.3 Law enforcement had recovered the suspect’s DNA from evidence at several crime scenes, and while the DNA connected the crimes to each other, the DNA never matched any of the profiles in law enforcement’s own DNA databases.4 Officers stated that they had used the suspect’s uploaded DNA sample to identify a biological relative and then identified other individuals in the matched user’s family tree, ultimately leading the officers to DeAngelo.5 The arrest of the Golden State Killer was a highly public instance of law enforcement using genetic data uploaded by private individuals to a public DNA database, rather than using state and federal databases, which are more commonly associated with crime-solving.6 Private use of genetic testing has expanded rapidly in recent years, with sites like Ancestry and 23andMe boasting millions of users in their databases.7 Users of these services send in a saliva sample and receive test results with information about their genetics, such as their ancestral countries of origin.8 Users may also elect to share certain identifying information about themselves with other users whom the testing service identifies as possible biological relatives.9 Other sites permit users to upload their genetic profiles and make them public to any other user of the site.10 These public sites are open source, meaning that anyone can access them- including law enforcement.11 Many of the articles concerning law enforcement’s methodology published in the immediate aftermath of the Golden State Killer arrest wrestle with optimism for the future of this technique to identify suspects in unsolved cases and wariness of the technique’s privacy implications.12 Regardless of the public’s trepidation, law enforcement has expanded upon the use of this technique, particularly in cold cases.13 Technology company Parabon Nanolabs has offered assistance to law enforcement in testing DNA samples for upload to sites like GEDmatch,14 and many law enforcement bodies have taken advantage of such offers to solve criminal cases.15 Any profile created by law enforcement on a public DNA database is also public, at least to a certain degree.16 The DNA testing procedures used to obtain the correct format for uploading to a public DNA database are also far more “intrusive” than DNA testing traditionally used by law enforcement.17 While the DNA tests used by law enforcement for inclusion in government databases reveal nothing about the individual’s ancestry or medical history, the testing performed by commercial DNA databases is specifically designed to provide personal information, such as the individual’s genetic predisposition for certain diseases.18 By uploading a suspect’s DNA on a site like GEDmatch, law enforcement is revealing a great deal of highly sensitive data about the suspect to an unknown number of third parties. Additionally, because DNA is shared between relatives, uploading a suspect’s DNA profile to a public website may also share data about the suspect’s biological relatives.19 This Comment argues that the sensitivity of the information revealed by a suspect’s genetic profile is so great that the suspect and the suspect’s family maintain a privacy interest in that genetic information. As such, law enforcement violates both the suspect’s right to privacy and the suspect’s relatives’ rights to privacy when law enforcement uploads the suspect’s DNA profile to an open source DNA database. While this Comment cites to several Fourth Amendment decisions, this Comment bases its argument solely on the grounds of the right to privacy. Any citation to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is used only to highlight the privacy interests protected by the courts in those cases. Additionally, while the anonymization of an individual’s data may seem to negate privacy concerns, there is no guarantee that this data will remain anonymous, particularly after a high-profile suspect is identified in the media.20 Some may also argue that a suspect does not maintain a privacy right in information revealed by crime scene DNA, but courts have recognized a right to confidentiality for certain kinds of sensitive information, even for individuals with reduced privacy rights.21 Part I of this Comment begins by providing some scientific background on DNA and then goes on to describe DNA testing techniques, focusing on the testing techniques used by law enforcement and private DNA testing services.22 This section further elaborates on the rise of direct-to-consumer DNA testing and the leaps in technology that now allow DNA tests to reveal far more information about an individual than previous DNA tests.23 Finally, Part I discusses the development of the constitutional right to privacy and the applicability of this right in analogous contexts.24 Next, Part II of this Comment analyzes the law enforcement practice of uploading a suspect’s DNA to a publicly available DNA database in the context of the applicable law discussed in Part I. Section II.A discusses the privacy rights of a suspect and argues that some of the information contained within an individual’s DNA implicates sensitive information about the individual’s health and genetic background. Therefore, law enforcement violates a suspect’s right to privacy by uploading the DNA profile to a website where the public can potentially access the information. Section II.B discusses the privacy rights of a suspect’s family members. This section argues that the information contained in a suspect’s DNA can also reveal sensitive information about a suspect’s family members. Because uploading the DNA profile implicates the privacy rights of innocent third parties, law enforcement is therefore obligated to keep this information confidential." Conclusion DNA testing technology has grown vastly more sophisticated in recent years, and law enforcement has chosen to use this newly available technology to track down suspects in cold cases. Additionally, given the success of this technology in solving cold cases, law enforcement may decide to use this technology in more types of cases. While the goal of bringing criminals to justice is certainly laudable, law enforcement must exercise caution when using open source DNA databases and not abuse the powerful information that it can now obtain. The technology used by law enforcement currently presents a significant intrusion into not only the potential suspect’s right to privacy, but the right to privacy of individuals related to him as well. Uploading a suspect’s genetic information to a website that cannot guarantee privacy of that data is a violation of both the suspect’s right to privacy in his medical information as well as the right to privacy of individuals related to that suspect.

[@robwiljas]

So your desire for justice means screw the constitution, law and rights huh? Cops should get to do everything without a warrant then right? After all your and the victims feelings trump all right?-

[@MSSynsyterGates]

@@KaiHouston-m6j Well spoken. Not a fan of murderers and certainly dont want them on the street but the justice system needs to follow their own rules, and not violate peoples rights. If they knew he was the right guy they should have been able to find some other evidence to help them get a warrant legally.

[@brentfarvors192]

The difference is we all retain a right to be secure in our persons; Our DNA is that person. No one likes a murderer, but we cant make exceptions or else no one will have rights. Like stated; This isn't about this specific case (as much as it seems); It's for all of the following cases, where DNA is stored without CONSENT (being the key word, here) He never consented to his DNA remaining in a database. Therefore, they need a warrant to access it...This is considered a "dragnet"; Where they run thousands of searches, and hope they get a hit. This is no different than searching every house until you find a crime...They need something linking him directly to the murder, in order to establish PC for a warrant.

[@FarmerRiddick]

So... There is a sample of my DNA on file with the DOD, prior to my deployment way back when. If I were to have committed a federal murder, could the FBI use that sample? Could the FBI use my fingerprints that are on file with the DMV? I would think that a DNA sample would be akin to fingerprints on file, regardless if the file is innocuous or related to a prior conviction. Just a thought.

[@brentfarvors192]

Yes. They can, and hopefully this case will change that...

[@benx6264]

Yes. While the DoD originally started collecting DNA from servicemembers during the Gulf War for identification purposes only, the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act opened the DoD's DNA database to law enforcement purposes. Not only that, but I don't think those specimens are destroyed after a servicemember gets out of the military. So if you've ever served the chances are good that the govt has your DNA profile on file.

[@denisberkson5737]

Egregious crimes make for terrible laws.

[@Brian-pz3wh]

Law enforcement needs to obey the law. Period. There are NO escapes.

[@fedbia2003]

They did.

[@Brian-pz3wh]

@@fedbia2003 Obviously since they are in court arguing the intent of the warrant they did NOT!

[@fedbia2003]

@@Brian-pz3wh Yeah, because only things that go to court are people breaking the laws. Decisions and interpretations have never been mistaken ever. You're right. Your tax dollars at work educating the public hard at work. You're the best argument against a democracy.

[@Brian-pz3wh]

@@fedbia2003 Nice attempt at deflection but a fail. In your view there simply is no accountability or responsibility since some one did something at some time to someone somewhere. This does not even remotely rise to the level of an "argument" because it is devoid of all logic. OF course the system is corrupt, never said it wasn't. But in the end the police MUST obey the law at all times or there is pure anarchy and you do not seem to be possessed of any appropriate level of intelligence to comprehend that simple truth. No matter what any else does, it does not justify your criminal behavior, and in the end it is YOU with your demand for zero accountability that is a true danger to "democracy" and you have zero capacity to understand that since you are so busy falsely calling out others. Do try and wrap your mind around that concept.

[@fedbia2003]

@@Brian-pz3wh You still don’t understand what’s going on here. This is interpretation of the law. But sorry, your dollar store public school education failed you.

[@Grigsy]

Both sides make good points. However, according to existing law/procedure, the defense has a slightly better argument. In a previous case, as a part of any conviction, you are required to submit DNA tests to a database. However, that DNA wasn't the one used to support a conviction in the new case. That DNA used in the new case was. Used taken when he still had a presumption of innocence, even if it later there was a conviction. However, from the state's point of view, once the DNA is in the system, it's in the system, and they would have access to it and the ability to use it as they see fit. We've clearly opened up DNA laws very broadly in the last 10 years in order to make it easier to convict people. I'm not sure its a huge stretch - the state's argument. For example, if you waive your miranda rights in 1 case but not in another, the state can still use your statements in both courts.

[@bokesnmokes]

That judge makes me want to vomit ... Oh dear the police solving murders is chilling what are the boundaries? The boundaries are imprison that guy for life and put that judge out on the street and get someone competent on the bench!

[@nautifella]

The anchor brought up a valid point comparing the DNA to fingerprints. Due to my employment history from the Navy to state government to school districts to various security related state and federal licenses, my fingerprints are all over the place in who really knows how many databases. If they turn up at a crime scene (they have) it doesn't matter where they find the match, it's still me. If the blood was obtained legally for another criminal case, it should be allowed as evidence in other cases.

[@susisorglos6125]

You gave your prints to the state WITH consent. When the defendant gave his blood for a DWI, did he also consent for DNA-Testing or not not? That is the question.

[@Woodyperckerhead-ni3ti]

Finger prints from a check at the bank to cash. I wouldn’t

[@GamesFromSpace]

This is more like if they took your fingerprints surreptitiously, for the purpose of searching in a valid database. It's that combination which is the issue, because they would just keep your data on file even if you never showed up in the first search.

[@nilstelle365]

Such a load of crap to get a murder off a crime of murder

[@josemilian4167]

on side on privacy for this one. applying for job doesn't mean everyone for the rest of time should have access to your information. it's a release with a specific intended purpose no more no less. trying to say well we already have your information we can use it when and how ever we want makes no sense to me in so many situations.

[@robwiljas]

Blatant constitutional violation.

[@jeremypage6093]

I would hate to see a man get off over a technicality but I’d also hate to see a violation of rights. If we give them permission to violate rights for some things eventually they will violate rights for all things. “Evidence” doesn’t always prove guilt. There are plenty of cases that can be found off a quick search of the internet.

[@nevamo7820]

Take his DNA now, today, in an investigation. Then it's legal. Problem solved!

[@ryanbroos5143]

The case would still get dismissed because of the constitutional rights violation used to identify him in the first place. What they should have done is get a warrant to obtain that sample instead of saying "it's already evidence". As someone mentioned in another comment when doing a blood test for a DWI, DNA is *not* processed as part of it. This isn't just about this case, it's about all future cases too. If this is allowed, whose to say it won't be done to wrongfully convict another person. That's the concern.

[@TheWhale45]

This is what Happened. I'm sorry where do you think a warrant is needed? Insert the word Fingerprints for DNA and then answer the question. here is what actually happened. No twisting and turning and omgs involved. All sample's they compared to were legally collected years ago..."Investigators said they were able to make the connection, in part, by using familial DNA, matching DNA found at the scene with one of Mitcham’s brothers who was already in prison. Scottsdale police then used Ian Mitcham’s DNA sample from a 2015 DUI to connect the DNA at the crime scene to Mitcham." One wonders how many other people he killed before he got this sloppy with his DNA>

[@philswaim392]

If dna is data (it is in this context as it relates to identity) then when you consent to give your data for an unrelated purpose, it should he considered a separate seizure to use it for a different purpose. Difference between this and finger prints is you generally give fingerprints specifically for the purpose of general identification to police. In the case of this defendent he only gave his dna for a limited purpose tied to that case

[@joetrujillo9371]

If the guys walks after all of this "certainty" that he is the one that committed the murder; all the public servants involved in this case should be sentenced to what his sentence minimum would have been.

[@tahwnikcufos]

Wait, he's saying they have evidence positively linking him to a murder, and his play is you got it illegally? I thought evidence, as long as it's significant to the current proceeding, is legal now, if it was legal then. His attorneys are idiots... everyone ever arrested has their fingerprints in a database - his DNA is NOT new evidence. The bus drive analogy does NOT apply!

[@WakandaSmurf]

Where was his DNA found? Important question imo

[@Ward413]

The narrator says around 0:55 that “It was DNA evidence police used from a 2015 DUI.” So I assume he consented to a blood draw for that 2015 DUI and then the same blood was used years later for his DNA.

[@brentfarvors192]

They took it without consent, for an unrelated dui screen...

[@patrickday4206]

If it's not just it's not law. Saint Augustine. To complex of a situation to respond in a youtube post . I would need to dig into the case.

[@brentfarvors192]

Basically, they took a blood sample for a tox screen, and kept his DNA in a database, without his consent...The sample should not have been taken.

[@darrenwerner1829]

Once a sample is used for a specific purpose the sample should be destroyed otherwise it would most likely fall under the taking clause and that in itself is unconstitutional and should render any search using it void.

[@ianmcclellan7695]

So if the police take a criminal’s mugshot or fingerprints for crime number 1, are this alleged murderer’s defenders saying that law enforcement can’t use that mugshot or fingerprints for a second crime? Do they also not realise how DNA fingerprinting was first used? It caught a murderer and rapist in the UK called Colin Pitchfork. There is no problem with DNA fingerprinting, the court just needs to satisfy itself that the evidence was collected in a legal manner and the correlation to the database was sound.

[@brentfarvors192]

Your last paragraph outlines the main issue; The sample wasn't collected legally...He was submitting to a tox screen for alcohol; Not agreeing to his DNA to be stored in a database...

[@roberthance2412]

wait i am a bit confused . the courts force some criminals to have their dna taken and that info is entered in their system for future use , are they saying that them cases should get tossed now as well or that it should not be used as a identifier in the future , if that's the case then why compel it in the first place ??????

[@mhs411]

The argument is that, the police obtained DNA unlawfully. (They went back into their database to find DNA that was used for a previous unrelated crime: DUI) The defendants attorney wants the case thrown out. And they actually have a legitimate stance. I can see this making its way to the Supreme Court.

[@bones343]

Great argument by the state. “Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t change”. Now what exactly does that non sequitur have to do with whether or not it was obtained legally or is admissible? It doesn’t. This is purely an ends justify the means argument. The state doesn’t want to be burdened by laws and rights and the constitution. Sadly, a murderer may get off the hook because of the states refusal to follow the law and do the things the right way. As usual, when the state does wrong, it’s we the people who pay the consequences.

[@ygrittesnow1701]

To be completely honest. I am very surprised they aren't collecting DNA samples at birth for this very reason. They already obtain footprints and sometimes fingerprints at birth.

[@doubleasblog]

Not true, Scotus has already ruled on CODIS.

[@brentfarvors192]

They also ruled that dragnet searches are unconstitutional...Which, is what they did in this case... The main issue being consent for the search. He didn't give them consent to search his dna. His DNA should not have been in a database. Samples need to be destroyed after the conclusion of the og offense, or stipulated to in a plea agreement (Ex: sex offenders...) This was a dui. His DNA shouldn't have been in a database for them to find...

[@georgepoitras3502]

Supreme Court

[@DennisMartinezCalifornia]

Yup seems like a big deal 😮

[@speckey1983]

Fruit if the poisonous tree, the evidence sgould be suppressed. The police and prosecutor need to obtain the proper warrants

[@mc_sim]

was the blood taken for dui legally? yes. then it's legal to use it in any other way or time later.

[@TheMje1963]

DNA is DNA it never changes, Don't care if it was taken 20 years ago or yesterday, it's still the same DNA. The courts should allow it to be used.

[@crisnmaryfam7344]

Introduction On April 25, 2018, law enforcement arrested Joseph James DeAngelo, a seventy-two-year-old resident of a Sacramento, California suburb, for a string of rapes and murders committed in the 1970s and 1980s.1 The killer had eluded law enforcement for decades and was previously known only as the “Golden State Killer,” the “Original Night Stalker,” and the “East Area Rapist.”2 Shortly after the arrest, details surfaced regarding law enforcement’s method for catching the alleged killer. Law enforcement revealed that it had uploaded the unknown suspect’s DNA to a DNA database called GEDmatch, an open source website that allows users to upload their genetic profiles from consumer genetic testing sites like Ancestry and 23andMe and make the profiles public to other GEDmatch users.3 Law enforcement had recovered the suspect’s DNA from evidence at several crime scenes, and while the DNA connected the crimes to each other, the DNA never matched any of the profiles in law enforcement’s own DNA databases.4 Officers stated that they had used the suspect’s uploaded DNA sample to identify a biological relative and then identified other individuals in the matched user’s family tree, ultimately leading the officers to DeAngelo.5 The arrest of the Golden State Killer was a highly public instance of law enforcement using genetic data uploaded by private individuals to a public DNA database, rather than using state and federal databases, which are more commonly associated with crime-solving.6 Private use of genetic testing has expanded rapidly in recent years, with sites like Ancestry and 23andMe boasting millions of users in their databases.7 Users of these services send in a saliva sample and receive test results with information about their genetics, such as their ancestral countries of origin.8 Users may also elect to share certain identifying information about themselves with other users whom the testing service identifies as possible biological relatives.9 Other sites permit users to upload their genetic profiles and make them public to any other user of the site.10 These public sites are open source, meaning that anyone can access them- including law enforcement.11 Many of the articles concerning law enforcement’s methodology published in the immediate aftermath of the Golden State Killer arrest wrestle with optimism for the future of this technique to identify suspects in unsolved cases and wariness of the technique’s privacy implications.12 Regardless of the public’s trepidation, law enforcement has expanded upon the use of this technique, particularly in cold cases.13 Technology company Parabon Nanolabs has offered assistance to law enforcement in testing DNA samples for upload to sites like GEDmatch,14 and many law enforcement bodies have taken advantage of such offers to solve criminal cases.15 Any profile created by law enforcement on a public DNA database is also public, at least to a certain degree.16 The DNA testing procedures used to obtain the correct format for uploading to a public DNA database are also far more “intrusive” than DNA testing traditionally used by law enforcement.17 While the DNA tests used by law enforcement for inclusion in government databases reveal nothing about the individual’s ancestry or medical history, the testing performed by commercial DNA databases is specifically designed to provide personal information, such as the individual’s genetic predisposition for certain diseases.18 By uploading a suspect’s DNA on a site like GEDmatch, law enforcement is revealing a great deal of highly sensitive data about the suspect to an unknown number of third parties. Additionally, because DNA is shared between relatives, uploading a suspect’s DNA profile to a public website may also share data about the suspect’s biological relatives.19 Conclusion DNA testing technology has grown vastly more sophisticated in recent years, and law enforcement has chosen to use this newly available technology to track down suspects in cold cases. Additionally, given the success of this technology in solving cold cases, law enforcement may decide to use this technology in more types of cases. While the goal of bringing criminals to justice is certainly laudable, law enforcement must exercise caution when using open source DNA databases and not abuse the powerful information that it can now obtain. The technology used by law enforcement currently presents a significant intrusion into not only the potential suspect’s right to privacy, but the right to privacy of individuals related to him as well. Uploading a suspect’s genetic information to a website that cannot guarantee privacy of that data is a violation of both the suspect’s right to privacy in his medical information as well as the right to privacy of individuals related to that suspect.

[@jonathanjones3126]

Not if the law or warrant didn't allow for it. Do you want everyone's DNA in a government database because that is where your idea leads to

[@TheWhale45]

This is a waste of time. If they already have your DNA from a previous crime it is just like fingerprints. Hey I KNow don't kill people.

[@aelfheld]

Police & other agencies can keep fingerprint samples for . . . well, forever. How is this different? The sample wasn't obtained illegally.

[@TwilightRage2099]

As far as I'm concerned... Once you're in the system, ALL evidence is eternal and can be used against you in the future. Pictures, DNA, search history, IP activities, call logs, chat logs, etc. should always be kept and used if needed. The only caveat is if someone if found innocent, then that evidence should be destroyed after all appeals are concluded (or the case was dismissed due to tampering).

[@Ward413]

“Found innocent?” Our system doesn’t have a “found innocent” homie. At best you’re found “not guilty” which simply means the prosecution didn’t meet their burden of convincing a jury you’re guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You also assume the state will act in good faith with this forever stored evidence when we know they don’t.

[@jeremymcpherson7334]

If the DNA matches a murder suspect then it's a closed case who cares about their rights if their DNA matches