Local DNA labs avoid state and U.S. limits

WASHINGTON — A growing number of police crime labs are adding DNA from
suspects to databases that operate outside of state and federal law by
matching those suspects to unrelated crimes.
Proponents say the databases, which have solved more than 50 crimes, are
legitimate because no laws forbid them.

Defense lawyers and privacy advocates counter that the federal
government and all 50 states require individuals to be convicted or in
some cases indicted for a serious crime before their DNA can be added to
the FBI's national criminal database. Searching a suspect's DNA, they
argue, violates privacy rights.

"It's a cloudy area," says David Kaye, a law professor at Arizona State
University.

Few court rulings exist to say whether these databases are legal or
whether data contained in them can be used in criminal cases.

State legislators in Illinois and New York this year are among the first
to consider bills that would regulate or forbid the databases.

Since 1990, states and the federal government have matched DNA from
unsolved crimes to convicts or in seven states to some arrestees through
an FBI computer system.

That system, called CODIS, has matched DNA from convicted offenders and
arrestees to over 35,000 unsolved crimes since 1990, FBI spokeswoman Ann
Todd says.

However, there's a growing number of DNA samples the FBI can't store.
They include DNA taken from criminal suspects who are later cleared and
from persons who volunteer to give DNA to convince police they are
innocent.

Laboratories in at least five states — California, Florida, Illinois,
Missouri and New York — use local databases to store DNA data ineligible
for the FBI database.

New York state has at least eight local crime labs that keep over 2,000
DNA profiles of suspects, according to documents obtained under a
Freedom of Information request by the New York-based Innocence Project,
which specializes in overturning convictions through DNA evidence, and
shared with USA TODAY.

"They're rogue databases that operate without the public's knowledge and
without the security and privacy considerations of the government
databases," says Stephen Saloom, the Innocence Project's policy
director. "This is an issue the public ought to decide."

John Feinblatt, criminal justice coordinator for New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg, says using suspect DNA is no different than using
fingerprints from one case to help solve another — a practice that
courts condone.

"Nothing happens to a person who has DNA on file unless they commit a
crime," Feinblatt says.

"The law has to catch up with science."

The article is HERE:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-25-dna-databases_N.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It does not seem like a bad thing to me and privacy aside, I thought we
WERE doing this...

If you are not a criminal, why would you holler "you are invading my
privacy!"

?????

.02

true dat...its bitter sweet....but its so true....why worry if you not
guilty..

Becuse big brother can do whatever he wants. If you give a sample to
eliminate yourself as a suspect in a case and you are eliminated why
would the goverment have a reason to keep your sample?

cuz you can just as easily turn around and do a crime thinkin you can
out smart the law that they wont already have your evidence......

cuz you can just as easily turn around and do a crime thinkin you can
out smart the law that they wont already have your evidence......

If you want the gov up your a-- thats on you I don't see how any of it
would hold up in court as the chain of evidence is broken once it goes
to one of these rouge labs. aAnd what is to prevent someone who
accuired your sample from planting it at a future crime scene? But
hey what do I know it's the goverment trust them, have they ever lied?

Hiya beerrunner,

I don't see how DNA could be planted anywhere. They keep the results in
a database. Having this information can also prove you INNOCENT as the
article states.

Hiya islandking,

It seems that being proven innocent is just as important as being proven
guilty (as you said) and these days, with all the accusations flying to
families first (conjecture) when a relative dies it could keep folks OUT
of jail.

yeah I realised that after iI reread the artical I just don't like the
goverment and in this case it's privte enterpise doing the dirty work
collecting data on people for no reason other then they want it, and god
morning to you I was incorrect on that point

I see no problem with it, it is like having your fingerprints on file.
I had a security clearance in the army so my fingerprints are already on
file I also had a security gaurd license so my fingerprints went on file
again. Just like they can't take your fingerprint card and plant your
fingerpirnts at a crime scene, they can't take your DNA profile and
plant your DNA at a crime scene. Note to self: Put more tinfoil in hat

islandking gimme that bulldog!!!! what a BEAUTY!
Sorry but i agree with putting the DNA into the databases. Betcha they
catch all kinds of SCUMBAGS!!!! sorry ya'll just being
honest!

Watch Minority Report
then answer the question.

Hey - I saw that movie. Good SCIENCE FICTION.

>> they can't take your fingerprint card and plant your fingerpirnts at a crime scene

Um, maybe I read too much fiction, but why can't they use something like
the same tech used in an ink-jet printer, except using the appropriate
oils (instead of ink) to 'print' the oil onto a piece of plastic -
leaving an oil pattern exactly matching your fingerprint - and then
press this oil-imaged plastic onto a something at the crime scene,
leaving a fingerprint?

35,000 unsolved crimes solved by the DNA.....speaks for itself. I could
see defense lawyer's screaming over this database.

Most states say you must be convicted of a crime in order to have your
DNA taken and added to the database, strikes me as odd. Especially when
the suject gave consent to have their DNA taken, no?

In Canada, when you are arrested they take your fingerprints and they
are added to a database. Last I recall, if you are convicted, they
remain for a long period of time. If you are not convicted, they remain
there for several years, then you have to apply for a "pardon" to have
them removed from the registry. You have to pay $50.00 to have them
removed and you weren't even convicted?

The DNA is kept on file/in a database thereafter, not for future crimes
but to cross-match any/all unsolved crimes much like the fingerprint's.
One could say the only people worried about it would be the criminals.
Again, the right's of criminals superceding the innocents and the
victims. JMHO.

Gardenforge hit it on the nose. us veterans are perfect examples.
Especially those of us younger veterans. I myself, when going into
service had to provide not only fingerprints but also a dna sample. The
government will always have it. Also, god forbid you are ina serious
enough accident, but what if your body is found, no head, all burned
beyond recognition?
Dna is all that is left to identify you.

I remember working for the VA hospital when the theory of DNA testing
rose. Lots of doctors working for the VA laughed this concept off as sci
fi. A few years later DNA testing was in full force solving many crimes
and mysteries. You know after watching what i considered to be
atrocities against veterans at their own VA HOSPITAL I was not upset
when reganomics took my job from there. I was absolutely appauled at
what i witnessed on a daily basis. I also got to read much about testing
on veterans. Our veterans here in America have been lab rats for decades
and many were unknowing/unsuspecting victims to these tests. I strongly
believe to this day the real reason those VA doctors were dead set
against DNA testing was simply the basic concept that these doctors
couldn't pad their own greedy pockets with more of our tax dollars. I am
just calling it as i see it. But i believe this to be true from
everything i witnessed working for the veterans administation.

>> Most states say you must be convicted of a crime in order to have your
DNA taken and added to the database, strikes me as odd. Especially when
the suject gave consent to have their DNA taken, no?

'Consent' can be coerced. And 'consent to sample' is not the same as
'consent to have the dna logged in a database'.

There are so many advantages, I think its inevitable that DNA databases
continue expanding and continue being used in more ways - but its good
that 'privacy groups' resist and criticize this - it helps insure that
its done in a more sane way.

This is not just about 'privacy' nor just about 'solving crimes' - this
is also about the balance of power between the individual and the
government. How much do you trust your government?

My understanding is that this is part why the founders of the USA
guaranteed the right to bear arms - in the modern era the right to not
have your DNA in a database may be MORE important (than the right to
bear arms) in the balance of power between the state and the people.

I also agree with dna registering because it would help find unknown
fathers (those that get drunk, impregnate a girl on a onenight stand
etc, then dissapear) so that they can start paying child suport...

Way I see it, don't do the crime if ya can't do the time. I think it's a
GREAT idea, and may prove to be an invaluable resource for keeping at
least SOME of the scum off the streets.