The collection of DNA by law enforcement is a controversial topic that raises important questions about privacy and civil liberties. Police and prosecutors argue that DNA evidence is an invaluable crime-fighting tool, while privacy advocates warn that warrantless DNA collection risks creating a “genetic panopticon” where citizens’ biological information is constantly tracked and stored without consent. This article will examine the legal and ethical issues surrounding law enforcement DNA collection practices.
What are the rules for police DNA collection?
In general, the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before collecting an individual’s DNA. However, there are some exceptions:
- DNA can be collected from criminal suspects upon arrest in all 50 states.
- DNA can be collected from convicted felons in prison in all 50 states.
- Some states allow DNA collection from individuals merely arrested or charged with certain crimes.
- DNA can be collected without consent or a warrant if it is abandoned/discarded material (e.g. cigarette butts, coffee cups).
There are also DNA dragnets, where police ask large groups of people to voluntarily provide DNA samples during an investigation. This is legally permitted with consent, but privacy advocates argue it pressures people to surrender DNA without probable cause.
SCOTUS rulings on DNA collection
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several key rulings on DNA collection:
- Maryland v. King (2013) – Upheld DNA collection from arrestees without a warrant.
- Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) – Struck down warrantless blood tests for drunk driving investigations.
- Carpenter v. United States (2018) – Required a warrant for long-term location tracking via cell phone records.
These suggest warrantless DNA collection is allowed in limited circumstances, but still faces Fourth Amendment barriers.
Do police sometimes go too far in collecting DNA?
Critics argue that overzealous DNA collection practices essentially allow “fishing expeditions” that violate civil liberties:
- Collecting DNA from family members of suspects to find partial matches.
- Retaining DNA from cleared suspects and innocent people.
- Using abandoned DNA without probable cause of a crime.
- Failing to remove DNA profiles of exonerated persons.
For example, in 2013 Maryland police collected DNA from the stepdaughter of a suspect without her consent or a warrant. Critics argue this “human fishing” exploits loopholes to gather DNA indiscriminately.
Controversial DNA collection methods
Some controversial DNA collection methods that privacy advocates object to include:
- Surreptitious sampling – Taking DNA without knowledge or consent, like picking up hair or cigarette butts.
- DNA dragnets – Asking large groups of people to voluntarily provide DNA to find a perpetrator.
- Familial searches – Looking for partial matches between crime scene DNA and police databases to find relatives.
Critics argue these techniques infringe on civil liberties and privacy rights. But law enforcement contends they are necessary crime-fighting tools.
What happens to DNA samples after collection?
Typically, collected DNA samples are analyzed to create a unique DNA profile of short tandem repeats (STRs). This profile is then uploaded to and checked against local, state, and national DNA databases:
- CODIS – The FBI’s national DNA database with over 14 million profiles.
- State databases like SDIS.
- Local lab databases.
If there is a match/partial match, it may provide investigators with leads or evidence. However, privacy advocates worry indefinite DNA storage expands government surveillance capabilities. Several states have passed laws requiring DNA destruction after conviction, exoneration, or case closure.
Who can access and use DNA databases?
Access to DNA databases is usually restricted to law enforcement, prosecutors, and crime labs. However, controversially, some databases also permit:
- Government agencies investigating non-criminal matters like parentage.
- University researchers.
- Genealogy sites like GEDmatch.
This raises concerns about expanded DNA access without consent. For their part, law enforcement argues DNA research serves the public interest. But privacy advocates counter it requires careful oversight to prevent abuse.
What are the ethical concerns about DNA databasing?
Beyond privacy issues, critics raise several ethical concerns about law enforcement DNA collection and databases:
- Erodes presumption of innocence by indefinitely archiving DNA.
- Potential for bias and over-policing of marginalized groups.
- Chills freedom of association and expression.
- Expands unregulated government surveillance powers.
- Lacks transparency on how profiles are used and shared.
These concerns persist despite DNA’s value as a crime-fighting tool. As databases rapidly expand, proper regulations and oversight are needed to ensure ethical DNA databasing aligned with public interests.
Racial bias and DNA databases
A major ethical concern is racial bias in DNA collection and databases:
- African Americans are disproportionately arrested and convicted, biasing databases.
- Familial searches may disproportionately impact minority groups.
- Over-policing perpetuates marginalization of minority communities.
Studies show African Americans likely make up 40% of CODIS profiles despite being only 13% of the U.S. population. This underscores the need to address disparities in the criminal justice system.
What reforms do critics and advocates propose?
To address ethical concerns while retaining DNA’s crime-fighting value, reform advocates propose:
- Stricter limits and warrants for collecting samples.
- Mandatory removal for exonerated people’s profiles.
- Barring familial searches to find partial matches.
- Tighter restrictions on accessing databases.
- Shorter retention times for cleared suspects’ profiles.
- More transparency and auditing of databases.
- Addressing systemic biases and over-policing.
Law enforcement agencies counter that such restrictions would undermine public safety. Finding the right balance remains a challenging policy issue.
Conclusion
DNA evidence provides a powerful investigative tool for law enforcement. However, some collection practices raise civil liberties and ethical concerns about privacy, consent, surveillance, and racial bias. The debate continues between advocates calling for reform, and police arguing DNA databases deter and solve crime. With advancing technology, building appropriate safeguards and protections will remain vital to ensure just and ethical DNA databasing aligned with public interests. Going forward, community oversight and public accountability must be prioritized alongside public safety.